054/A FFG Thread II

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
You repeating a lie over and over isn't going to make it any more true than before you started spewing it. By the way, you have never told us what you meant by "time-sharing". Myself and my dozens of sources have already told YOU, but you yourself have never told SDF. Go ahead and amuse us with your professorial acumen on the details of "time-sharing according to Tam". :)

LOL. I already explained to you what time sharing is right from the start.

I already explained this.

"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. When Missiles 1 and 2 are consumed, Missiles 3 and 4 are then served with a lighted target by the SPG-62, while Missiles 5 and 6 are now on flight and on their way, guided by datalink, the data coming from the SPY-1. That's Time sharing. Its not as cool as APAR though, since a PAR with digital forming beams can form any number of CWI beams to suit each missile in the air, allowing for more robust simultaneous engagement. "

Like I said before, you repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it any more true than before you started spewing the lie. I gave you a simple task. A VERY simple task. Link and quote me directly where I was supposed to have said that a missile rides the beam from launch to target. I knew already that you would be as intellectually dishonest as you have been before, so I asked you to quote me literally instead of trying to dishonestly paraphrase and distort my words, and lo and behold, you do exactly that. How utterly pathetic.


Oh this is what you said:

"Wrong. First of all, there is no "time-sharing" with mechanical illuminators. None at all. The Aegis Mk 99 FCR is mechanical CWI (continuous wave illumination), which means the ESSM or SM-2 rides a continuous beam all the way in until impact. " Your Post 4040. My bold.

"CWI illuminators refer to illuminators like the Mk 99, which have to light up a single target all the way until the ESSM or the SM-2 strikes the lit-up target. They have to do this because they are mechanical illuminators and lack the physical agility to time-share their beams between multiple targets. " Your Post 4054. My Bold.

You also said this.

"ICWI, like what APAR and likely what all other modern naval high-band ESAs use, does NOT necessarily involve dedicating a single beam to a single target all the way from launch to impact." Post 4064. My bold.

Even mechanical illuminators do not need to dedicate a single beam for a target from one to end. It only needs to light up on the final end.


Wow, thank you for pointing that out. APAR has 3,000+ elements. And yet it employs ICWI. You just can't get around this annoying little detail, can you? LOL

You mean this?

"The "interrupted" part comes in to play because an illumination beam is being time-shared amongst multiple targets, but it's being cycled between them so fast that a missile riding that beam in can't tell that it's not really a continuous beam, hence ICWI (in addition, newer ESAs don't necessarily even have to employ ICWI if their programming and their panel size allows them to dedicate a specific number of T/R modules to a specific target for the entire engagement). ICWI is a widely accepted and used term. " Your Post 4064.

And this is where you really fail.

There is no text to support that. With over 3,400 elements per face time four, there is no reason why you cannot use simultaneous beams instead.

So which of these papers talk about "Continuous Wave Illumination"? The answer is none. The SPG-62 is a "continuous wave illuminator" with no tracking function at all and therefore no need to have any interruption in its emissions in order to receive a signal, which means your articles do not apply to CWI, as this concept is discussed in the context of modern missile fire control.

Which means in my articles does not need to apply to ICW.

In addition, the concept of interrupted continuous wave in the articles you cited is CLEARLY different from ICWI as is used today by Thales and by other less-genius-sources-compared-to-Tam, such as Johns Hopkins. I have provided not only links from non-Thales sources for you to clearly learn what ICWI is, I have cut and pasted their relevant portions directly into my post so that you can't help but read them.

What you mean Thales decided to change the textual definition of ICW that has been in use for decades since the sixties?

Your sources only refer to the Thales brand name "ICWI", but none of them really explained how it operates.

OMG your reasoning skills are shockingly substandard here. ICWI isn't used for tracking just because active-guided missiles are used on the same ship. Yes, if a missile is active it doesn't need ICWI. Well what about the SARH-guided missiles (like both ESSM and SM-2) on the same ship, genius??? LOL I guess since ICWI is apparently used for "tracking" instead of illumination, these SARH missiles have no terminal illumination to speak of, and they will just get shot out for effect and to provide some free firework displays for the crew. hahahahaha

This is what the Thales brochure says.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Screenshot 2018-09-04 at 7.20.24 PM.png

Using the same illumination that is being used to home a SARH missile, you can still track the target at the same time because the radar still echoes back to the original base radar. What it does is kill two birds in one stone. That's how illuminators that can self track work. That's also how fighter radars work. From then on, the tracking data can be used to help guide an ARH or SARH missile through the datalink.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
O.M.G. you are getting so sickeningly dishonest it's becoming grotesque...

Is this a Thales marketing brochure, genius?:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Does it explain how it works?

Is this a Thales marketing brochure, genius?:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Does not explain it either. Except for a gem that proves my point that ICW being mentioned here is closer to what I was saying.


Screenshot 2018-09-04 at 7.32.26 PM.png

So it has a different wave form. That is the traditional version of ICW, as instead of a continuous sine wave, you got straight 90 degree drops in the wave form when the interruption happens.

Is this a Thales marketing brochure, genius?:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Yup. Just repeating marketing material.

Is this a Thales marketing brochure, genius?:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Another article with ZERO information about how ICWI works.

I could go on and on and on and on and on.... but I think even YOU get the picture at this point.

You can go and on, and not find one article that shows how it works. Except for one article that says it has a different waveform and the missiles have to be modified for it. Which is to be expected.
I guess you will now say that all these sources (including Johns Hopkins, no less) and myself have been duped by flashy big corporation marketing and you are the only genius who saw through all the hype and have been able to conclude via your high IQ that it's all just bullshit. hahahahahahaha

No longer necessary since one of your sources has essentially disproved this.

What you said ---

"The "interrupted" part comes in to play because an illumination beam is being time-shared amongst multiple targets, but it's being cycled between them so fast that a missile riding that beam in can't tell that it's not really a continuous beam, hence ICWI "

Really and how does that create a different waveform?

Actually, it is designed to do that exact thing, genius. The Akizuki and Asahiri classes were designed with mass saturation attacks in mind. That's why their Mk 41s are filled to the brim with 64 ESSM (and 16 ASW missiles), and their mission is to defend Kongous and Atagos from mass saturation missile attacks (and submarine threats). But you didn't know any of that, which is why you are perfectly happy to continuing making a laughably comical comparison between ATECS and whatever the hell CMS is on a 056. ROFLMAO

But according to this

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Asahi is optimized for undersea threats.

And so you are saying Murasame and Takanami are ASuW vessels primarily despite having an overpriced L-band aerial search radar for its centerpiece? That sounds even less right.


Not really. You are the one saying the Murasame and others are somehow showing strong US influences. Not only this is a subjective opinion, it is retardedly inadequate in proving that those masts are steel rather than aluminum, especially if steel causes interference with a radar situated right next to it. In fact this line of argumentation is so retarded and gratuitously devoid of common sense that you arguing it just shows the depths to which you are willing to sink to drag a conversation into the weeds and overwhelm it with useless drivel.

With US the predominant defense supplier and the predominant defense partner....
 
Last edited:

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Let me rephrase this properly.


"Using the same illumination that is being used to home a SARH missile, you can still track the target at the same time because the radar still echoes back to the original base radar. What it does is kill two birds in one stone. That's how illuminators that can self track work. That's also how fighter radars work. From then on, the tracking data can be used to help guide an ARH or SARH missile through the datalink.

#4081"

The same CWI illumination used to light up a target for one missile, also reflects back to the source radar and provide target tracking information to the CMS. This information is used to keep all beams in target, and data sent through the data links to all other missiles.

That certainly fits the classic idea of ICW because this method would benefit here, with the radar receiving echoes after interruption and before the next wave.
 
Tam
what are you trying to achieve here:
"ICWI, like what APAR and likely what all other modern naval high-band ESAs use, does NOT necessarily involve dedicating a single beam to a single target all the way from launch to impact." Post 4064. My bold.
??

Iron ... asked you "Link and quote me directly where I was supposed to have said that a missile rides the beam from launch to target."

while the sentence you've pulled contains "does NOT necessarily" part ... I've noticed quickly because I actually recalled that sentence

(it's inside #4064 Iron Man, Yesterday at 1:19 AM )

as it described what I had read like five years ago about ICWI / ESSM "combo" on the Akizukis

Tam
I saw many things in this forum, but ... ignoring "does NOT necessarily" part of a sentence and basically claim the debater said the opposite, that's ... something
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Tam
what are you trying to achieve here:

??

Iron ... asked you "Link and quote me directly where I was supposed to have said that a missile rides the beam from launch to target."

while the sentence you've pulled contains "does NOT necessarily" part ... I've noticed quickly because I actually recalled that sentence

(it's inside #4064 Iron Man, Yesterday at 1:19 AM )

as it described what I had read like five years ago about ICWI / ESSM "combo" on the Akizukis

Tam
I saw many things in this forum, but ... ignoring "does NOT necessarily" part of a sentence and basically claim the debater said the opposite, that's ... something


Did you not read the sentences just previous that? What do you think "all the way" means? Like in "ESSM or SM-2 rides a continuous beam all the way in until impact." Uses the phrase "all the way" at least three times, because that's not how modern SARH systems work against longer ranged targets, whether they are mechanically or electronically steered.
 
Did you not read the sentences just previous that? What ...
what the ...
Tam
now I looked back to see you're TROLLING:

in response to

"Now you contradict your own point. You cannot do what you are describing above if the missile will beam ride from its launch to the target. It does not take a few seconds for a missile to reach its target; it takes many seconds. Mach 3 being a kilometer per second, it would take a hundred seconds to reach 100km."

part of #4066 Tam, Monday at 5:49 AM

Iron ... said

"Were you saying something about not reading things properly? Nobody said anything about riding a beam from launch to target. Please link and quote where you think I said that." etc. #4072 Iron Man, Monday at 9:04 AM

and the story went on as I described Yesterday at 7:05 PM


Tam
you're a Troll who deliberately ignored "does NOT necessarily" part of a sentence,

and I encourage you to take this (the label I put on you) to moderation
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
what the ...
Tam
now I looked back to see you're TROLLING:

in response to

"Now you contradict your own point. You cannot do what you are describing above if the missile will beam ride from its launch to the target. It does not take a few seconds for a missile to reach its target; it takes many seconds. Mach 3 being a kilometer per second, it would take a hundred seconds to reach 100km."

part of #4066 Tam, Monday at 5:49 AM

Iron ... said

"Were you saying something about not reading things properly? Nobody said anything about riding a beam from launch to target. Please link and quote where you think I said that." etc. #4072 Iron Man, Monday at 9:04 AM

and the story went on as I described Yesterday at 7:05 PM

I can also see you are also selecting information.

" The Aegis Mk 99 FCR is mechanical CWI (continuous wave illumination), which means the ESSM or SM-2 rides a continuous beam all the way in until impact. Only ESAs are agile enough to perform ICWI (interrupted CWI), and only high C-band (or higher) ESAs, since they need to have enough resolution to qualify as FCRs in the first place. Second, "time-sharing" (i.e. ICWI) only applies specifically to APAR, which first pioneered the technique, and probably to later ESAs like EMPAR, Sampson, and SPY-6 (the X-band portion); it is likely that 346A's C-band portion is also capable of ICWI. Earlier radars like the FCRs used on the Murasames and the Orekhs on the 054As, do not "time-share", if by that you mean ICWI." --- Iron Man post 4040


So what part of "ESSM or SM-2 rides a continuous beam all the way in until impact" means not riding a beam to you?

Note that Post 4040 is an earlier post than 4072, and that he changed his story after 4040.

As for what ICW is, this is from a slide presentation just to make it simple.

Spark,+CW+&+ICW+Waveforms.jpg



And here is an IEEE submitted technical paper as a sample. Again, a continuous wave that is being gated or switched on and off, the result of which creates the aforementioned waveform.


Screenshot 2018-09-05 at 3.40.31 PM.png Screenshot 2018-09-05 at 3.42.48 PM.png
 
Last edited:

davidau

Senior Member
Registered Member
anyone saw this 054AG before??.. is it for sale to a foreign country?

105749hvhc5zvhhzvz58c4.jpg
 
Top