Naval missile guidance thread - SAM systems

oh so it looks like
Tam
knew ships with Aegis(R LM) couldn't target BM and other threads simultaneously, but
Tam
kept TROLLING
:

"Atagos and Kongos do carry ESSM, and if they don't that would be another crazy decision."

somewhere in this page, won't bother with linking
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
oh so it looks like
Tam
knew ships with Aegis(R LM) couldn't target BM and other threads simultaneously, but
Tam
kept TROLLING
:

"Atagos and Kongos do carry ESSM, and if they don't that would be another crazy decision."

somewhere in this page, won't bother with linking


I am going to write a complaint to the moderators about you for direct harassment.
 
Wednesday at 7:24 AM
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
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
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.
These are directly relevant industry sources which directly address the term ICWI, compared to your irrelevant "academic" sources which do not even address illumination.

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.
Cutting down on beam requirement by half does not even remotely address how ICWI allows multi-target illumination where CWI does not. This is all just a useless wall of text from you attempting to obfuscate this painfully obvious fact.

As for "3424 X-band elements on a single target isn't illuminating a target", this is yet another pathetic lie that you made up in your desperate attempt at covering up your inability to directly respond to my points. Nobody including me EVER stated that an entire facing panel's T/R modules would be used on a single target, whether for illumination or for detection, though this is certainly not out of the realm of possibility. And you literally have no idea what the radiated energy on a target is when 3,424 APAR elements are focused upon it, so don't even try this stupid "cooking" and "microwave oven" drivel on me. It's getting tiring reading this kind of unsupported crap coming out of you.

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.
Who cares what you personally feel is "braintarded"?

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.
I don't care what you "see" or "don't see" about the CMS of the 056. I honestly don't. Again, I asked you to provide evidence that the 056's CMS is scalable in this exact fashion, and I predicted that you would utterly fail to deliver. Thank you for confirming exactly this and nothing less than this. You don't know WTF you are talking about here, and you have no evidence whatsoever to back up this ludicrously speculative paragraph.

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.
I don't need to ask myself anything at all. The fact remains that Atago and Kongou don't carry ESSMs. The fact remains that Akizuki and Asahi carry ESSMs. The fact remains that Akizuki and Asahi are built with Atago/Kongou defense in mind. The fact remains that you are absolutely, unambiguously wrong on every, single, last, point here. Problem?

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.
You have absolutely no idea what is cheaper and not cheaper with regard to either USN or JMSDF acquisitions. Both the USN and the JMSDF have Aegis ships that require help with defense when executing BMD missions. The USN uses other Aegis destroyers not deployed on BMD missions. The JMSDF uses Akizukis and Asahis. All your whining and posturing about how much smarter you are compared to people who actually do this stuff for a living is not going to change the facts of the matter.

From Seaforth World Naval Review 2017 (p. 108):
IMG_3304.jpg
 
Last edited:

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
These are directly relevant industry sources which directly address the term ICWI, compared to your irrelevant "academic" sources which do not even address illumination.

These are simply not. They don't even explain it.

Furthermore those industry sources, when it comes to detail, don't describe the scheme the way you wanted to.

Here is one that is a bit more detailed.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


"the capability to simultaneously generate multiple beams on a given antenna face;"

Cutting down on beam requirement by half does not even remotely address how ICWI allows multi-target illumination where CWI does not. This is all just a useless wall of text from you attempting to obfuscate this painfully obvious fact.

Sorry but you don't get it do you?

Your single CWI beam will not provide any ranging information at all. You have no idea that pure CWI beams do not provide range information. The CWI beam does not know where to aim itself. Something else has to tell them.

For your scheme to work, with a single CWI beam and my example of 8 targets, it still has to track 8 targets using 8 separate PRF beams, It never really eliminates the need for multiple tracking beams. The information from the PRF beams is used to guide the CWI beam.

Tracking beam is not the same as the illuminating beam.

Continuous Wave cannot produce range information but pulse produces range information. A continuous wave has no end and no beginning, which does not have a marker to produce range. That is the nature of being continuous. To get range, you need a pulse, you measure the time at the end when the pulse is sent out, and then the time when the pulse is received back as an echo. Pulse like characteristics can be modulated into continuous wave via frequency modulation, or interruption, or a combination of both.

See the SPY-1D. That produces the multiple PRF beams. The SPG-69 produces the CWI beam.

What kind of CWI beam that can produce both range information and do target illumination? Either an FMCW or ICW.


As for "3424 X-band elements on a single target isn't illuminating a target", this is yet another pathetic lie that you made up in your desperate attempt at covering up your inability to directly respond to my points. Nobody including me EVER stated that an entire facing panel's T/R modules would be used on a single target, whether for illumination or for detection, though this is certainly not out of the realm of possibility. And you literally have no idea what the radiated energy on a target is when 3,424 APAR elements are focused upon it, so don't even try this stupid "cooking" and "microwave oven" drivel on me. It's getting tiring reading this kind of unsupported crap coming out of you.

Your pathetic point isn't even worth discussing. What's the point of not having multiple TR modules when you only have one beam going merry go around against X number of targets? Which in the first place you have to prove that's how its done when its note. So what does the rest of the radar do?

Who cares what you personally feel is "braintarded"?

Speak for yourself.

I don't care what you "see" or "don't see" about the CMS of the 056. I honestly don't. Again, I asked you to provide evidence that the 056's CMS is scalable in this exact fashion, and I predicted that you would utterly fail to deliver. Thank you for confirming exactly this and nothing less than this. You don't know WTF you are talking about here, and you have no evidence whatsoever to back up this ludicrously speculative paragraph.

I don't know enough of the 056's CMS, but the current trends in CMS is now towards architecture that can scale upwards and downwards, which is all much cheaper and faster to implement, as you constantly reuse proven code, proven hardware, and you don't have to constantly rewrite a brand new CMS for every new vessel. Likewise, there is no evidence that the 056' CMS is brand new or isn't using common and reusable libraries, which by the way, happens to be the norm for software development.

I don't need to ask myself anything at all. The fact remains that Atago and Kongou don't carry ESSMs. The fact remains that Akizuki and Asahi carry ESSMs. The fact remains that Akizuki and Asahi are built with Atago/Kongou defense in mind. The fact remains that you are absolutely, unambiguously wrong on every, single, last, point here. Problem?

Yes, still a dumb idea. You have not explained how being wholly ESSM is such a great idea.

You have absolutely no idea what is cheaper and not cheaper with regard to either USN or JMSDF acquisitions. Both the USN and the JMSDF have Aegis ships that require help with defense when executing BMD missions. The USN uses other Aegis destroyers not deployed on BMD missions. The JMSDF uses Akizukis and Asahis. All your whining and posturing about how much smarter you are compared to people who actually do this stuff for a living is not going to change the facts of the matter.

From Seaforth World Naval Review 2017 (p. 108):
View attachment 48724

Still does not explain why the Akizukis and Asahis need to be ESSM only for this purpose, and why they don't have SM-2s. Or why its not a better idea to just simply assign another Kongo class that is fitted with ESSMs.

Furthermore the upcoming ESSM Block II, with its ARH guidance, that allows for multiple simultaneous engagement past the limitations of the SPG-62, makes the Akizuki a completely moot point,
 
I'm not
Tam
so don't shoot LOL but am not sure about your USN using other destroyers in this context:
... Both the USN and the JMSDF have Aegis ships that require help with defense when executing BMD missions. The USN uses other Aegis destroyers not deployed on BMD missions. ...

you may want to check this older quote inside Friday at 8:20 AM
:
"... 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 ..."
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
AND

the recent stuff

The US Navy is fed up with ballistic missile defense patrols
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


not mentioning any other destroyers covering those deployed to Rota, Spain or elsewhere on ABM missions;

from what I figured, a SeaRAM put on them was all they got
 
Last edited:

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
These are simply not. They don't even explain it.

Furthermore those industry sources, when it comes to detail, don't describe the scheme the way you wanted to.

Here is one that is a bit more detailed.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


"the capability to simultaneously generate multiple beams on a given antenna face;"

Sorry but you don't get it do you?

Your single CWI beam will not provide any ranging information at all. You have no idea that pure CWI beams do not provide range information. The CWI beam does not know where to aim itself. Something else has to tell them.

For your scheme to work, with a single CWI beam and my example of 8 targets, it still has to track 8 targets using 8 separate PRF beams, It never really eliminates the need for multiple tracking beams. The information from the PRF beams is used to guide the CWI beam.

Tracking beam is not the same as the illuminating beam.

Continuous Wave cannot produce range information but pulse produces range information. A continuous wave has no end and no beginning, which does not have a marker to produce range. That is the nature of being continuous. To get range, you need a pulse, you measure the time at the end when the pulse is sent out, and then the time when the pulse is received back as an echo. Pulse like characteristics can be modulated into continuous wave via frequency modulation, or interruption, or a combination of both.

See the SPY-1D. That produces the multiple PRF beams. The SPG-69 produces the CWI beam.

What kind of CWI beam that can produce both range information and do target illumination? Either an FMCW or ICW.
No, YOU don't get it. The industry sources while not detailing the exact mechanisms for their statements do not make sense except for the mechanism which I have proposed; meanwhile I will point out ONCE AGAIN that your explanation STILL fails to explain how ICWI allows multi-target illumination but CWI does not. Here you are just repeating the same drivel that you repeated in the last post. It doesn't matter that the tracking beam is not the same as the illumination beam for CW while it is for ICW. This does NOTHING to explain how "ICWI" allows multi-target illumination while "CWI" does not. You repeating yourself like a nervous tic a million times won't turn make this any more true the millionth time you spew it.

Your pathetic point isn't even worth discussing. What's the point of not having multiple TR modules when you only have one beam going merry go around against X number of targets? Which in the first place you have to prove that's how its done when its note. So what does the rest of the radar do?



Speak for yourself.



I don't know enough of the 056's CMS, but the current trends in CMS is now towards architecture that can scale upwards and downwards, which is all much cheaper and faster to implement, as you constantly reuse proven code, proven hardware, and you don't have to constantly rewrite a brand new CMS for every new vessel. Likewise, there is no evidence that the 056' CMS is brand new or isn't using common and reusable libraries, which by the way, happens to be the norm for software development.



Yes, still a dumb idea. You have not explained how being wholly ESSM is such a great idea.



Still does not explain why the Akizukis and Asahis need to be ESSM only for this purpose, and why they don't have SM-2s. Or why its not a better idea to just simply assign another Kongo class that is fitted with ESSMs.

Furthermore the upcoming ESSM Block II, with its ARH guidance, that allows for multiple simultaneous engagement past the limitations of the SPG-62, makes the Akizuki a completely moot point,
Yeah, basically all of this bitching here about how you are allegedly (and humorously) so much more awesome than actual industry professionals UTTERLY and COMPLETELY fails to conceal the fact that you were dead wrong about the Atagos/Kongous, dead wrong about the Akizukis/Asahis, and lack evidence for your totally baseless claim about the 056's CMS. In other words, you know nothing, and you have nothing. Do you actually even dispute any of this? LOL
 
no problem I'll get ignored, but repeat what I asked 'in the initial round' of this discussion in
PLAN Type 054 FFG Thread II Sep 3, 2018
and what interests me:
there's something I want to ask ... how do I put it ... I follow (LOL among so many other things) a blogger who bitches about the USN fielding untested stuff

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


etc., it's
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


so the question, which sounds silly, is how many threats would
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
REALLY take down?

the Pentagon's PR Department would of course answer 'as many as there're missiles in VLSs'

LOL I'm not in any Conspiracy, but was
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
ever shown to work against for example DOZEN of
BQM-74E Aerial Target
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

COMING AT ONCE?
 

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
no problem I'll get ignored, but repeat what I asked 'in the initial round' of this discussion in
PLAN Type 054 FFG Thread II Sep 3, 2018
and what interests me:
Do you honestly expect to get an informed answer to a question that is one of the most closely guarded secrets of the USN?

That said, the radar system on the latest E-2Cs can allegedly track 2,000+ targets. If the Aegis system cannot manage this many targets as well then it seems like a wasted capability on the part of the E-2C, which by implication suggests to me that Aegis can in fact handle this many targets, especially since the E-2C is equipped with CEC.
 
Top