CWI Guidance vs ICWI Guidance Discussion

Discussion in 'Navy' started by Iron Man, Sep 5, 2018.

  1. Iron Man
    Offline

    Iron Man Captain
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    2,791
    Likes Received:
    2,462
    And I already told you that you there is no time-sharing going on anywhere in this paragraph. Since the missiles arrive in series rather than in parallel, there is no need to time-share the illuminator. The only time you ever need to time-share an illuminator is when outbound missiles are all arriving at about the same time, in which case the beam needs to be time-shared between all of them.

    Correct, I said all of this. AND?

    I have already stated multiple times in multiple posts that because of the way the Mk99 is transmit-only, there is no guidance function in that system and therefore is only illumination. Because of this, the SPG-62 only lights up the target in the last few seconds of the engagement, AFTER which the ESSM/SM-2 rides the beam in "all the way" until impact, which is why you don't need as many illuminators in this setup as a 054A does with its missile guidance setup. Did you somehow forget me being amused with you attempting to denigrate Aegis illuminators as being so few when I responded that they don't work like 054A's illuminators work? And they don't work like Orekhs because they only need to work on each target for a few seconds at a time (i.e. at the end), which means they DON'T have to start illuminating at the time the missile is launched.

    BTW, for my last statement I said "NOT necessarily" just in case you wanted to try and get slimey with me and create a scenario with a target that is so close the ESSM will start homing in on the target immediately after launch. In which case the ESSM will in fact be riding the beam all the way from launch to impact. And no, you don't have to have a datalink in this case even for VLS because all you have to do is instruct the ESSM/SM-2/HHQ-16 to launch in the direction of the target and due to its proximity the missile would be able to start homing immediately.

    Unless you plan to use the rest of the T/R modules for other purposes. Did you even once consider this possibility??? LOL

    The fact is, YOUR fatal flaw is that you are completely unable to come up with a scheme in which your definition of ICWI illuminators allow for multiple targets to be lit up with a single illuminator where CWI illuminators only allow for one target at a time. And don't forget about SPG-62. It IS a CWI illuminator regardless of whether it has tracking functions or not so your previous attempt to exclude it from the discussion is a total fail. It's like saying the laws of physics only applies to most circumstances, but not all. ROFLMAO

    No, as I have said before, none of your sources which talk about "ICW" also talk about "ICWI", and if the concepts that your sources are using to describe "ICW" are different from the sources describing "ICWI", then clearing we are not talking about the same things.

    You are clearly missing the point. I am legitimizing the existence of the concept of ICWI here, not necessarily providing a technical explanation for how it works. You have been ragging on ICWI like it's some kind of fake marketing crap put up by a company. You have previously uttered such nonsense as "INTERRUPTED CONTINUOUS Wave Illumination sounds like an oxymoron", and you didn't even warm up to the idea until you actually started reading up on it during the course of the discussion. BTW, Thales has now had 18 years of APAR working on multiple ship classes all using ICWI illumination to attack targets. So yeah, I will take Thales marketing over your personal opinion any day of the week. They could have had zero years of experience and I would still take their marketing brochures over your personal opinion.

    Regardless, if my understanding of ICWI is not correct, you have still not come up with an explanation as to how an "ICWI" illuminator allows multiple target illumination whereas a "CWI" illuminator can only illuminate a single target.

    Again, your reasoning skills are rather astonishing. Even if the Asahi class were optimized to make ramen noodles, how in the hell does that change the optimization of the Akizuki to defend the Kongous and Atagos from mass saturation attacks, hmmm? Enquiring minds want to know.

    In fact, although Asahi is optimized for ASW, its new GaN AESA radar is actually vastly superior to that of the Akizuki and its VLS cell count remains the same, which means that all it takes for the Asahi to switch to primarily AAW is to swap out some VLA for some more ESSM.

    This means what, exactly? Therefore the mast on the Murasame is steel instead of aluminum so that it can blot out an entire quadrant of its own radar?? LOLOLOLOL
     
  2. Tam
    Offline

    Tam Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2016
    Messages:
    870
    Likes Received:
    1,391
    Lets make it clear to you.

    I have been asking you evidence --- technical papers and so on --- to validate your claim that with regards to ESA illuminator lighting up several targets by juggling one single beam, which you seem to refer to that as "ICWI". By the way, which you brought up none with regards to describing how it works at all? I don't even know you brought that up when we were talking about "time sharing". An ESA illuminator only needs to digitally form some beams, one for each target, just as you do with track and scan. You don't have to rotate a main beam among many targets quickly to make it appear as "Interrupted Continuous Wave Illumination". ESA type illuminators, namely PESA, has been around for a while, in the MPQ-53 for the PAC system, Tombstone and other FCRs for the S-300 and so on, and these can engage six to 12 targets from a single face. If dividing the power of the array into several beams concerns you with regards to signal power, that's a technical issue --- you make elements more powerful, the waveform more power, a seeker with better receiving gain. If the missiles are as good as they say, the arrays and its elements are as good as they say, that should not be a problem.

    The "Wave" in ICWI already points to this as a modification in the waveform and not the scanning procedure of the system. It allow for better receiving sensitivity because the radar cuts the transmission after it transmits, and this pause period is used by the radar to receive the echoes without bleed interference from the transmission phase. This only matters with a CW radar that has both a receive and transmit, which describes not just APAR but also SPY-3 on the Zumwalt and the X-band arrays on the Akizuki. This won't matter if you have separate receive/transmit and transmit only arrays. That's what it simply is.

    Since the waveform is changed, the seekers of the missiles would have to be reprogrammed for this.

    There is no dedicated illuminator on the ESA radar doing CWI, which is only one of the multiple radar modes you can expect the radar to handle. The CWI/ICWI beam that is being used to illuminate the target for the homing missile also sends its echoes back to the base radar for the target tracking information. So one beam does two things.

    It would certainly degrade that quadrant. Even if its aluminum it would certainly will. Whether its aluminum or steel, it would certainly have AC current running inside to power the other equipment, and that also creates their own RF, whose frequency is timed to the AC cycle. They have to be prepared to sacrifice for some degradation.

    I don't even know why a Kongo or Atago needs AAW protection from a smaller ship. The whole point of being Aegis is to be its own AAW shield. Why do you need a shield to protect a shield?

    A ship with GaN arrays that's only equipped with ESSM also sounds like a waste, although there is still the potentiality of later using SM-2. But this sounds nearly as wasteful as the German F125 frigates which also have GaN arrays but goes further in having only RAM for its air defense.


    That is not my personal opinion. You saw the McGraw Hill textbook. That dates back to 1969. You have IEEE papers talking about their detectability in 1976. I already posted that for you.

    Army radios from 1916.

    Screenshot 2018-09-05 at 11.47.43 PM.png


    ICW is a way of producing a waveform and that waveform. That's the Wave in ICW. The term is not even limited to radar but also communications, audio, sonar etc,.

    This is from Army Communication during the Great War.

    https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=...3/Keith-Thrower_Army-radio-communication.pptx


    This paper is from the US Navy's Naval Undersea Warfare Center. The typeface of this document goes back a long time ago.


    Screenshot 2018-09-05 at 11.53.30 PM.png Screenshot 2018-09-05 at 11.53.36 PM.png
     
  3. Iron Man
    Offline

    Iron Man Captain
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    2,791
    Likes Received:
    2,462
    I don't have any technical papers to provide you on this. However, the papers which YOU have provided do absolutely nothing to disprove the multiple sources which I have provided which state that "ICWI" illuminators allow multiple-target illumination compared to "CWI" illuminators, and if this capability is NOT due to what I have been saying, you still have not been able to state why ICWI enables multiple target illumination while CWI does not. Also, being ESA doesn't distinguish ICWI from CWI, since older radars like Orekh are PESA and they don't employ ICWI.

    Yeah, you're pretty much done here.

    Who cares what you know or don't know or don't know why something is being done? This is not even a denial that Akizuki's main role is AAW and in particular defense of the Atagos/Kongous, or that the Asahi's radar is even more powerful than that of the Akizuki. What this is is a failure to provide any form of legitimate rebuttal against ATECS being obviously and ridiculously far superior to whatever CMS is on the 056. I have no idea why you (allegedly) find this to be such a strange arrangement anyway, since Atagos and Kongous don't carry ESSM and therefore ships which carry MRSAMs like the Akizuki and Asahi are perfect complements to the larger LRSAM-carrying Atagos and Kongous. This is a similar arrangement to what 054As and 052Ds have.

    Again, until you find evidence that "ICW" and "ICWI" refer to the same thing and why ICWI enables multi-target illumination while CWI does not, then you've still got nothing. It doesn't matter how many walls of text you put up.
     
  4. Tam
    Offline

    Tam Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2016
    Messages:
    870
    Likes Received:
    1,391

    The I in ICWI refers to illumination. The ICW definitely refers to Interrupted Continuous Wave. That much is obvious. Go ahead if you want another definition of ICW from the IEEE's, go ahead.

    So far you have not provided any papers about how your scheme operates, if it even exists.

    Your scheme would greatly reduce the transmission window given for each missile with the window time divided by the number of targets. That's a very severe degradation. This scheme looks easy for EW because during the interrupted gap, the ECM can target the missile seeker with its spoofed copy of the wave before the transmission is refreshed. All the ECM needs to do is fill in the interrupted gaps with spoofs while the missile seeker still thinks its one continuous transmission.

    I already stated many times to you that you can do multiple target illumination by digitally forming the same number of beams.

    What makes you think that multiple CWI beams cannot be generated by ESA arrays? That's being done since decades by FCRs like MPQ-53 (lights up 8 targets) and Tombstone (lights up six targets). These are PESAs.

    Any PESA with 2D coordinate can digitally form separate CWI beams. Orekh and Buk uses FMCW.

    Atagos and Kongos do carry ESSM, and if they don't that would be another crazy decision. That would mean crippling your big destroyer to give purpose to your little destroyer. If they don't carry ESSM that would be as crazy and stupid as the same decision not to give ATECS ships SM-2.

    Over $900 million spent for a ship to "guard" a $1.5 billion ship is crazy. The USN never found any need to have their Aegis destroyers escorted and protected by another AAW ship. If you find your $1.5 billion ship needs to be protected by a $900 million ship, something is very wrong with your ship planning.

    You keep talking about the CMS on the 056 as being separate and seems to have no idea what scalable means.

    052Ds does not need an arrangement with that with 054As with regards to AAW. More like the 052Ds provide long range cover for the 054A. Its not as if the HHQ-9 does not have a minimum engagement range.
     
    #4 Tam, Sep 5, 2018
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2018
  5. Iron Man
    Offline

    Iron Man Captain
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    2,791
    Likes Received:
    2,462
    Look, it's very simple:

    "Interrupted Continuous Wave Illumination (ICWI) enables a single fire control radar to control several missiles simultaneously, thereby greatly enhancing a ship's defence capabilities."

    "ICWI guidance helps a single missile control radar guide several missiles simultaneously to several threats, instead of having a limited number of illuminators that can each focus on just one missile and one threat at a time. This has substantial benefits in the event of saturation attacks."

    BTW, I have already previously provided the sources for these quotes.

    Tell me how your conception of ICWI specifically vis-à-vis CWI squares with these statements. If you can't do that, you don't have an argument.

    Oh, Atagos and Kongous DO carry ESSM?? LOL you just pulled that lie right out of your ass, didn't you? Please cite a source that states Atagos and Kongous carry ESSM. The upcoming 27DD super-Atagos may or may not have the ESSM integrated, but certainly the current Atagos as well as the Kongous do not, no matter how much 'alternative facts' you pull out of your nether regions. BTW, it doesn't matter what you personally consider to be crazy and stupid, since your random internet opinion is of zero relevance in the grander scheme of JMSDF ship design and weapons procurement that involve hundreds to thousands (?) of people who are going to be invariably smarter than you and know the needs of the JMSDF (probably infinitely) better than you. You seem to have this overinflated sense of self-worth that allows you to make these hilariously outsized and totally unsupported statements about ship design and weapons choices of various navies. It's amusing to read, but it lacks all substance as well as any measure of common sense.

    Yes, I keep talking about the CMS on the 056 "as being separate" and I have no idea WTF you are talking about in terms of "scalable" with respect to the 056's CMS. This is yet another lie you just pulled out of your ass with absolutely no evidence behind it. You seem to be implying that if you simply scale up the 056's CMS it will all of a sudden turn into the 052D's CMS, or even the 055's CMS, just like magic, as if the 056 CMS was inherently designed from the ground up to be some kind of Aegis-lite with dreams of grandeur. ROFLMAO Please provide ANY shred of evidence for the existence of this magic. Note that even if this were true, it would do absolutely nothing to change the fact that in its current form the 056's CMS is not comparable to either the ATECS or to Aegis or to whatever CMS is on the 052D and 055, so your point here is useless regardless of what evidence you can provide (which we both know is "none whatsoever").

    And no, I did not say that either the Atago/Kongou or the 052D "needs" the protection of the Akizuki/Asahi or the 054A. That is yet another one of your fabrications. They are simply complementary, that's all. MRSAMs add another layer to the onion of fleet air defense, a cheaper alternative, a faster-responding alternative (for both ESSM/SM-2 and HHQ-16/HHQ-9), a possibly superior agility and higher Pk rates for the MRSAM, and an alternative with a lower minimum range, especially in regards to the ESSM/SM-2 pairing, where the boosted semi-ballistic flight profile of the SM-2 results in a significant minimum range compared to other missiles. In the end, it doesn't matter what reasons are given that may or may not satisfy your personal sense of grand cosmological balance, the Kongous and Atagos simply do not carry the ESSM, while the Akizukis and Asahis do. Problem? Too bad for you.
     
  6. Jura
    Offline

    Jura Lieutenant General

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    17,388
    Likes Received:
    23,340
    was wondering, Iron are you perhaps involved in seaforces.org project?

    it's the only site I know which spells Kongou
    http://www.seaforces.org/marint/Japan-Maritime-Self-Defense-Force/Destroyer/Kongou-class.htm
     
  7. Iron Man
    Offline

    Iron Man Captain
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    2,791
    Likes Received:
    2,462
    No, I've never heard of this project. Kongou is also spelled thus by Seaforth World Naval Review, an annual publication with loads of info on the world's navies, and highlights a few special ships. Coincidentally, 2017 features the Akizuki class. I think someone should get their hands on a copy of this book ROFLMAO
     
    Jura likes this.
  8. Tam
    Offline

    Tam Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2016
    Messages:
    870
    Likes Received:
    1,391
    Those are not academic sources. Those kinds of sources won't get you pass college if you cite them on your paper.

    Stick to academic and peer reviewed sources.

    A single ICWI beam serves as both the illumination beam for the missile and the tracking beam for the home radar. If you have 8 targets engaged, you have 8 beams tracking the targets via the tracking radar, and another 8 beams lighting up the targets for the missiles via the illuminating array, for a total of 16 beams.

    You only need just 8 beams to both track and engage 8 targets which cuts down your beam requirement by half. Less beam requirement, less elements allocated, less array real estate needed, and you don't need a second array dedicated for illumination.

    Pure CW --- This does not give range information. Only useful from an illuminator only. CW only gives heading and closure rate. This is only what the missile needs. The base radar station however needs range information for tracking and cannot use the CW form. This is why the tracking radar and the illumination array are separate, with the tracking radar using PRF and the illumination array using CW.

    FMCW --- By modifying the CW waveform to have markers, this lets you acquire range information.
    ICW --- Like FMCW, ICW has markers, via the interruption gaps, that the radar can use to measure for range.

    CW can't be used for ranging. FMCW and ICW can, and can be used with a fully functional radar with receive and transmit.

    Your described approach having a single beam going merry go around the targets also has fundamental issues.

    Radar A lights up Targets 1 to 8. Missile 1 homes on to the reflections of Target 1. Radar switches the beam to Target 2 to light up for Missile 1. Do you know what happens to Missile 1? Instead of waiting there, it would home in on the reflections of Target 2 and that's helped because that single beam is so strong. Eventually 8 missiles are just going to follow the beam whatever the beam lights up as it it goes to through the merry go round of lighting each of the 8 targets, and ultimately all missiles run out of fuel without hitting anything.

    Plus 3424 X-band elements on a single target isn't illuminating a target. Its more like cooking it. X-band is more energy dense than S-band, which is what's used on a microwave oven.

    If they don't carry ESSM, then its another braintarded decision as bad as not equipping ATECS ships with SM-2. Grander design? hohohoo. Procurement schemes tend to be highly political, and obvious pork barrels.


    I don't see the CMS of the Type 056 as being completely separate from that of the 052D, and if you don't know what scalable means, you certainly are not familiar with IT. It means having a computing architecture that can modularly grow to meet much larger requirements by adding components, or it can be reduced to fit a small and budget required need. The idea for doing this is that you don't need to write a brand new CMS for every ship class, rather you make one and you scale it up or down for different ships, while reusing as much of the same software, processing hardware and network architecture. This gets the ship out of development much more quickly in terms of CMS, cutting procurement, training, and maintenance costs due to the high commonality of the CMS among the ships.

    Just like the LCS has AEGIS software libraries on a new scalable CMS, despite having less armament than the 056.


    Why they not carry ESSM, but USN Aegis ships do, and don't need a smaller ship dedicated to all MRSAM. You ask yourself that.

    Even if MRSAM has higher PK rates, assuming they are --- you need to bring up the papers to back that up --- you just fit the MRSAM into the larger ship. And then if you are assuming that PK rates are going to be a function of agility, which comes from being a smaller and lighter missile, then RAM on Aegis destroyers would PKR even more than the ESSM, and likewise, HQ-10 on the 052D over the HQ-16.

    On top of all these, larger ships carry more decoys, have more ECM equipment, and more capable and powerful ones.
     
    #8 Tam, Sep 6, 2018
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2018
  9. Jura
    Offline

    Jura Lieutenant General

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    17,388
    Likes Received:
    23,340
    LOL, but in fact I'm fed up of that
    Tam
    so maybe you'll tell him/her even the Burkes forward-deployed to Rota, Spain don't have ESSMs

    “These Rota DDGs are an older baseline that don’t have ESSM Block II, because that capability doesn’t field until the mid-20s, so they pretty much have that standard missile defense and then CIWS. This gives them that RAM Block II layer, extra layer against those emergent threats.”

    says a Surface Ship Weapons Office Program Manager inside the USNI News inside
    Mar 9, 2016

    EDIT now realized that
    Tam
    might not know, or pretended not to know, a Burke on the BMD patrol needs protection!!

    "... Program Executive Officer for Integrated Warfare Systems (PEO IWS) Rear Adm. Jon Hill said last week at an American Society of Naval Engineers event.

    “We put [the ships] out there by themselves, and they’re putting all their radar energy up in space, they’re tracking space objects now, and you have to wonder, hey, can they defend themselves?” he said. After toying with the idea of putting a second ship nearby to protect the BMD destroyer – much like a cruiser protecting an aircraft carrier – the Navy decided the SeaRAM could fill the self-protection requirement ..."
    https://news.usni.org/2015/09/15/na...-ddgs-first-installation-complete-in-november
     
    #9 Jura, Sep 7, 2018
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2018
  10. Tam
    Offline

    Tam Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2016
    Messages:
    870
    Likes Received:
    1,391
    ESSM Block II isn't even deployed yet and won't be for a couple or two years. You have to raise your Aegis Baseline for that, but you have ships that haven't yet been upgraded to the latest baseline, given how the Navy is grappling with funds and which ship is getting an upgrade next. You don't need a new ship just for ESSM. Its still way cheaper to upgrade the ship to the latest Aegis baseline, then quad pack ESSMs on some of the 96 VLS available.



    A SeaRam launcher is like 8 missiles. That's only like two cells of Mk. 41 VLS of quadpacked ESSM.
     
Loading...

Share This Page