Yes, these ships have a combat data system, very likely to share libraries with the CMS of larger ships.
Yes, and you have still diluted this point to the point of uselessness. Your original intent was to try and downgrade ATECS by comparing it to the 056 combat data system. This approach has failed.
It does not matter. The ships currently do not have long range air defense capability. Unless they are equipped with SM-2 now, which they aren't.
Moving the goal posts again, I see. We are talking about inherent ATECS capability, NOT current ship capability. Does ATECS have inherent long range capability? I don't know. Also, YOU don't know.
Aluminum mast is flammable. One reason why the US went with all steel for the Burke. If the Japanese are following the US example, they would also be using steel.
The Japanese certainly didn't follow the US with its radar design here so how ludicrous would it be for Japan to follow US practice of designing steel superstructures/masts for the Murasame and other classes? LOL The US only started reverting back to steel superstructures with the Arleigh Burke, so it certainly has a past history of aluminum. Many modern ships also use aluminum so it's not like some kind of radical idea.
You seem to think that EW is something that is only active. There is also the passive element of EW which is meant to receive radars and other signals. Often this is how one ship detects the other the earliest by detecting their radar signals, which often comes to their search radar signals, the long band kind. Your own L-band blowing into these receivers won't help at all.
Just one example: take a look at where the ESM mast of the Type 45 is compared to where the SMART-L is. Ask yourself how the ESM mast can function with the SMART-L constantly sweeping radar signals into it. I guess you have never heard of "blanking". It's been around for decades.
Not true. ESSM and SM-2 can be datalinked during their midphase flight, and you only light the target during terminal phase. So while missiles 3 and 4 are on flight, missiles 1 and 2 are being served with a lighted target. Riding a continuous beam, the problem with that your missile seeker is too far to pick up the target with a strong lock even when illuminated since the seeker is outside of the terminal catch basket.
There is no "time-sharing" of any kind in this description here. And why is that? Because you are describing CWI. A CONTINUOUS BEAM, not shared with any other target until that target is destroyed, is the one and only distinction between CWI and ICWI.
And once more, Time Sharing isn't ICWI. Interrupted Continuous Wave Illumination is another subject entirely that is completely unrelated and has something to do with the continuous wave form. And that has been around for a long time.
What do you mean "once more"? There wasn't a first time where you said time-sharing isn't ICWI. And if you had said it, you would still be wrong. It has NOTHING to do with "continuous wave form", whatever you mean by that.
Use some Google-fu and get a clue, man.
And I quote: "The Mid-Course Guidance and Sampled Data Homing function is based on Interrupted Continuous Wave Illumination (ICWI), a Thales development with the APAR partners in the APAR radar program that enables a single missile control radar to guide several missiles simultaneously to several threats."
What makes you think that the sensor hasn't been upgraded ever since? Furthermore, the back end of it, including the CPU and the DSPs. Even older missiles are subjected to upgrades, the guidance section being changed.
Where is your evidence that YJ-83 seekers are being or have been upgraded? None. Better seekers are typically incorporated via blocks of new production missiles, since the overwhelmingly most expensive part of a missile is the seeker and the hardware that supports it, and putting a new seeker into an old missile body is penny-wise and pound-foolish. It is certainly not a common practice, and one you would definitely have to provide evidence for.
"Hundreds and thousands of targets?" If a radar displays this on a terminal and you have 30 seconds to determine what is the threat and to confirm it, you are in big trouble. Let's say, what if hundreds of those blips on the screen are the radar scatter from sea waves?
What??? Do you or do you not understand how Aegis and similar systems work? You think in an environment where there are hundreds or even thousands of targets, that the Aegis system will display every last one for human intervention to occur? LOL You have now missed the ENTIRE point of Aegis and similar systems. Aegis isn't for shooting down lone fighters or a couple missiles like what you have probably seen in the movies. Aegis is for when human decision-making is utterly overwhelmed by the sheer number of targets and automation has to take over in order to identify, track, prioritize, and attack the multitudes of targets that will characterize modern warfare and especially enemy missile saturation attacks. No, there will be no terminals displaying blips on radars for humans to have "30 seconds" to make decisions on. Once Aegis is fully turned on, you will be doing little more than sitting back and watching it do the work that it was meant to.
