054/A FFG Thread II

[Jura The idiot]

A radar, unless its a SAR or Synthetic Aperture type, does not see or acknowledge form. The only data it gets from the object is Heading, Range and Velocity.

I reconstructed the part of your conversation with I... which lead me to the post you now quoted
(it's for me, just so that's easier to read it again):

... Against modern navies you literally need a swarm of ASCMs, on the order of hundreds of simultaneously inbound missiles, attacking from multiple directions. Something that can only succeed with a coordinated launch by ships, subs, fighters, and shore-based batteries.

...

"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.

...




It does not change that seeing hundreds or thousands of targets in the screen is not a qualification for a better radar or CMS. Threat discrimination and confirmation should rank higher, as well as accuracy of range determination and velocity tracking, and resistance to not just ECM but to filter background interference and scatter.

I don't really believe anything what you say. There is always big skepticism about the machine in the chain which is why there is always considerable oversight and human decision making.

...


Who said anything about seeing hundreds or thousands of targets on a screen? NOBODY. Stop making up things to attack; it's dishonest. Aegis can track thousands of targets, but this capability has nothing to do with anything showing up on any screen. YOU are the only one talking about screens.

Also, you are arguing for nothing here, as usual. While number of targets tracked is quantifiable and is typically used as a surrogate for how advanced a particular combat data system is, even if just in a general sense, there is no easy way to quantify accuracy of target tracks, which nobody here is arguing is somehow less important than the number of targets trackable. Regardless, you are also now trying (once again) to move the goal posts. Your original quip was in reference to the large numbers of targets tracked and how a human would be overwhelmed by having to decide on hundreds to thousands of targets in less than "30 seconds" when in reality in such circumstances human would be mostly or completely removed from the decision-making process altogether, which is in fact the raison d'etre of Aegis, a fact that went right over you. Having missed (and realized) this, you are now trying to talk about quality of tracks vs quantity of tracks. Sure we can talk about that, or we can stick to the point, something which you seem to frequently not like to do once it's not going well for you.

...



How will you know which of these targets are bad or good? Who will determine it? Tracking hundreds of signals includes tracking false ones.



Accuracy of track and the number of targets track is inverse of each other.

The higher the track quality, the lower the number of targets being tracked, and furthermore, the range starts to shorten. A radar searching for targets and a radar tracking targets don't work the same way. A radar on a search mode, or surveying more targets over a larger 3D volume has a slower rotational sweep and scan rate to allow for a longer dwell time; PRF is longer, with a higher peak power and a longer duty cycle since the radar has to wait for the echoes. The frequency is also longer for lower atmospheric attenuation that lets it travel greater distance but offers lower discrimination.

But when threats are found, the radar moves to the next stage. Sweep and scan rates increase. If the radar is mechanical it is turning faster. PRF becomes much shorter, with short duty cycles and the radar may also move to a higher frequency which shortens range but increases discrimination. The target's range and speed becomes more precise, but with more radio energy directed at the threat targets, there is less radar to search around, and the number of targets being tracked decreases. This is another point why many ships have secondary search radars.

EDIT
as I see it, what I posted Today at 5:40 AM
would have to assume the targets are "catalogized" (I hope that's the right word here, sorry if it's not)

in short it'd mean to know at what to shoot (would be tough if new info was coming in between salvos)

just thinking aloud anyway

 

[Jura The idiot]

He is clearly referring to humans being present in the decision-making, or his response doesn't make sense. ...

now it appears
Tam
is concerned with
bogie (bogey)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(and not with shooting down the threats)

 

[Iron Man]

Really how? All I can see is a personal attack once you cannot respond to it.

Let me break it down for you:

It is stupid to continue talking about the 056 CMS when you tried to compare ATECS to it and tried to insinuate that ATECS was just a regular ole CMS like the 056's and having failed at that tack, you are now trying to get the conversation lost in the weeds so you don't have to appear to have lost this point.

It is stupid to continue talking about what the ATECS ships currently use because this is not a reliable gauge of their inherent capabilities. Since you don't have this information, you then tried to move the goal posts and talk about what the ships currently use rather than what the ATECS is capable of, and you did this because I pointed out that you literally have no idea what the inherent capability of ATECS is. Which remains true no matter what you say. This also goes back to your original attempt to move the goal posts by talking about "Aegis destroyers" instead of "modern warships", which is not the same thing. The main point is that you like to move the goal posts when things aren't going your way.

It is stupid to continue talking about the Murasames and Takanamis when you starting spouting totally subjective nonsensical drivel like "the Murasames and Takanamis show quite a strong US influence on their design"..... and therefore some how some way the Japanese have steel masts. ROFLMAO!!

It is stupid to continue talking about the distance between ESM masts and the ships' other radars when you start saying nonsensical things like "the SMART-L on the Type 45 is pretty distant from the ESM suites. If it sweeps past them you only blank out a narrow arc". Really?? You are an expert naval ship designer now and can judge how much is "pretty distant"?? LOL You clearly had no idea of the concept of blanking (though no doubt you will now claim otherwise), but after you found out about this, you try to quibble about distances, distances which you literally have no clue whether they do or do not have any effect on the function of ESM suites with or without electronic blanking measures in place. On the one hand we have you, a random internet person, criticizing a ship's design, with no prior knowledge of basic radar placement and interference-mitigation techniques, and on the other hand we have trained Japanese naval designers who I have no doubt would read your comments and proceed to LOL.

You are the one who don't know what you are talking about and can't separate marketing from the textual. If you do a Google Search on Interrupted Continuous Wave Illumination this is what comes up.

View attachment 48639

You should just read some of it.

You clearly have weak google-fu skills, and now I also know where you got all that gibberish from. You took that first hit off google and tried to pass it off as prior knowledge and give us an 'education' based off of what you gleaned from Wikipedia. Caught red-handed, mang.

Here is a better way to look for ICWI:


Just the first 5 or 6 hits should be enough to tell you what ICWI is. What it ISN'T is some kind of idiotic "oxymoron" or "marketing nonsense". You CLEARLY had absolutely no idea what ICWI was. But I'll bet you do now, don't you? "Marketing nonsense" indeed.

 

[Iron Man]

You made that up do you?

An illuminator does not light up a target all the way and missile seekers don't have the sheer range for that. If you are targeting SARH within 30 to 40 kilometers, you can do a direct illumination of the target because the range is close enough for the seeker to catch. But if its over 50 to 100km and over, you would need a datalink to sent the missile towards the target, then light up the target when the missile reaches its terminal seeker range. This is also true of aircraft on long range engagement.

ESSM and SM-2 doesn't ride the beam. The US hasn't built a beam rider for decades since Talos. A beam rider has radar receivers on the tail of the missile, and a radar beam is used to direct the missile towards the target.

If you light up an aerial target from a great distance with your target illumination, then expect the missile to fly all the way there, guess what will happen. The aircraft's own RWRs would warn the aircraft that you are being already being targeted by a fire control radar and CWI is a good indication a missile is on its way. A missile having a long time to reach the target, the target would already have enacted various countermeasures, that is going to end up defeating the missile.

If you have your search and tracking radar on the target, the target also knows this, but does not know a missile is on the way, until the target is within the missile seeker basket, and then you light up. The aircraft would still receive and respond to the threat, but it has a much shorter response window.

Another thing is that CWI itself doesn't have much range compared to pulse radar. Energy is sent continuously, unless pulse radar, where it is stopped, built up, then released as a pulse with a high peak power. Since receiving has its own dedicated phase --- it is not interfered by the transmission and has higher receptive power. This is why long range radars are all pulse radars. Note its easy for RWRs to identify CW vs. PRF, and with that, the stage of missile prosecution.

In the case of APAR, where the radar is both search, track and engage, the radars need to switch between Pulse or PRF modes and CWI modes, the PRF you need for search, scan and track, the CWI you need for target engagement. Why not make a continuous wave that acts more like a pulse radar?

Unlike some people, I don't need to make up nonsense to sound like I didn't lose an argument. Look, here's how it works, and the difference between CWI and ICWI.

CWI, like what the US Aegis system uses, involves the SPY-1D providing midcourse updates for the missile all the way until the last few seconds of the engagement. The SPG-62 (the radar component of the Mk99) then lights up the target in the final moments of an engagement, and there is no question about the ability of the ESSM or SM-2's ability to pick up the illumination and ride the beam in all the way to impact. The SPG-62 radar is a transmit-only mechanical radar that is slaved to the SPY-1D. Therefore there is none of this bullshit going on: "Continuous Wave means both receiver and transmitter are simultaneously receiving and transmitting at the same time, and you have an infinite wave form". Nice try, though. Because of the fact that the SPG-62 only needs to light up a target for a few seconds at a time, it can fairly quickly slew from one target to another (in succession) as more outbound missiles are arriving at their designated targets, though it can't cycle between multiple targets at the same time due to obvious physical limitations. That is why I laughed when you talked about Aegis ships having so few illuminators. Unlike the Mk99 CWI system which has no tracking functions (i.e. there is no simultaneous "receiving and transmitting" like you are trying to claim), an Orekh FCR DOES have tracking functions, and takes a missile all the way from launch to impact by providing target tracking, midcourse guidance, and at the end, illumination. That is why the 054A needs 4 illuminators where the Hobart only uses 2.

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. 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. It's not "marketing nonsense" just because you've (obviously) never heard of it before and were not able to correlate it with your original quip of "time-sharing", which you clearly didn't realize was in fact a description of ICWI. What followed was a literal barrage of verbal diarrhea attempting to cover up this lack of knowledge. Yet despite all the walls of text since then, you have never been able to specify what you thought "time-sharing" was if not ICWI, which I find to be quite humorous.

Why don't you actually read the text books? If you are good in Googling, why don't you try?

This is the standard line of someone who doesn't have access to ANY textbooks and demands that the other person go find them. Sorry, but you claim it, you provide it; that or GTFO.

Recently the latest block of Exocets with the French Navy. Older ones will be updated to the same standard. Harpoons and Standards are also subjected to upgrades, although Harpoons have been lapsed for the last decade or so.

It does not really matter what happened thirty years ago. Last ten years? More like nearly twenty now. You cannot expect their know how to stay the same after they figured out the Moskit.

No, they won't. And the fact that you say "block" proves my point. Blocks invariably refer to new production missiles, not refitted old ones. Thank you for proving my point.

How will you know which of these targets are bad or good? Who will determine it? Tracking hundreds of signals includes tracking false ones.

Accuracy of track and the number of targets track is inverse of each other.

The higher the track quality, the lower the number of targets being tracked, and furthermore, the range starts to shorten. A radar searching for targets and a radar tracking targets don't work the same way. A radar on a search mode, or surveying more targets over a larger 3D volume has a slower rotational sweep and scan rate to allow for a longer dwell time; PRF is longer, with a higher peak power and a longer duty cycle since the radar has to wait for the echoes. The frequency is also longer for lower atmospheric attenuation that lets it travel greater distance but offers lower discrimination.

But when threats are found, the radar moves to the next stage. Sweep and scan rates increase. If the radar is mechanical it is turning faster. PRF becomes much shorter, with short duty cycles and the radar may also move to a higher frequency which shortens range but increases discrimination. The target's range and speed becomes more precise, but with more radio energy directed at the threat targets, there is less radar to search around, and the number of targets being tracked decreases. This is another point why many ships have secondary search radars.

I applaud your attempt to move the goal posts YET AGAIN and try to get the conversation lost in the weeds. The subject at hand isn't quality of tracks vs quantity of tracks, but your original quip that humans wouldn't have enough time to intervene on all targets because they have less than "30 seconds" to do so (where did you get that particular number BTW?? ROFLMAO). The point is also that you completely failed to appreciate the main reason that Aegis was even developed in the first place, which was in fact to be able to remove humans from the equation altogether and automate the entire business of finding, tracking, prioritizing and attacking masses of incoming targets. And yes, this includes algorithms on determining what is clutter and removing them from the equation.

 

[Tam]

Let me break it down for you:

It is stupid to continue talking about the 056 CMS when you tried to compare ATECS to it and tried to insinuate that ATECS was just a regular ole CMS like the 056's and having failed at that tack, you are now trying to get the conversation lost in the weeds so you don't have to appear to have lost this point.

Oh, what so special about ATECS? Is there anything about that being better than the CMS used on 052D/056/055?

I just noticed how much of your conversation and replies are non technical and irrelevant in proving the point.

It is stupid to continue talking about what the ATECS ships currently use because this is not a reliable gauge of their inherent capabilities.

And neither does it make it better than the Chinese CMS in order to somehow claim that ATECS have greater capability.

Since you don't have this information, you then tried to move the goal posts and talk about what the ships currently use rather than what the ATECS is capable of, and you did this because I pointed out that you literally have no idea what the inherent capability of ATECS is. Which remains true no matter what you say. This also goes back to your original attempt to move the goal posts by talking about "Aegis destroyers" instead of "modern warships", which is not the same thing. The main point is that you like to move the goal posts when things aren't going your way.

Neither do you. But then, one gauge of a CMS is ahead on the road how many weapons it already supports. If you still need to add this functionality that the other already exists, the other is using its time to go further.

Whatever the CMS the Chinese ships are using, it already supports a longer list of weapons. Something like the HQ-10 alone would have required its own libraries.

It is stupid to continue talking about the Murasames and Takanamis when you starting spouting totally subjective nonsensical drivel like "the Murasames and Takanamis show quite a strong US influence on their design"..... and therefore some how some way the Japanese have steel masts. ROFLMAO!!

Oh, show to me otherwise.

It is stupid to continue talking about the distance between ESM masts and the ships' other radars when you start saying nonsensical things like "the SMART-L on the Type 45 is pretty distant from the ESM suites. If it sweeps past them you only blank out a narrow arc". Really??

Actually distance between radar related equipment matters completely with a ship. The SMART-L only needs to blank out only for a short arc when the beam traverses the mast. Assuming those bulbs on the mast are EW and not SATCOM.

You are an expert naval ship designer now and can judge how much is "pretty distant"?? LOL You clearly had no idea of the concept of blanking (though no doubt you will now claim otherwise), but after you found out about this, you try to quibble about distances, distances which you literally have no clue whether they do or do not have any effect on the function of ESM suites with or without electronic blanking measures in place. On the one hand we have you, a random internet person, criticizing a ship's design, with no prior knowledge of basic radar placement and interference-mitigation techniques, and on the other hand we have trained Japanese naval designers who I have no doubt would read your comments and proceed to LOL.

I would say EW being right next to the search radar, that would amount to sufficient interference. In ship design nothing is perfect and quite a lot of things are a compromise. The ideal location for the OPS-24 should be on top of the mast, but it may have been deemed too heavy for this and is located lower to reduce the center of gravity so the ship won't tilt when it is turning fast. However, you cannot also question where the EW suite goes, and the location of it in the ship is correct and conforms to where EW suites are located in other ships.

If you don't put the search radar on top of the mast, the most logical location next is the top of the second mast to the aft. That is where many other designs have this, and you can only look to see where the SMART-L you like to quip about is located in every ship that isn't a carrier.

You clearly have weak google-fu skills, and now I also know where you got all that gibberish from. You took that first hit off google and tried to pass it off as prior knowledge and give us an 'education' based off of what you gleaned from Wikipedia. Caught red-handed, mang.

Here is a better way to look for ICWI:
View attachment 48644

Just the first 5 or 6 hits should be enough to tell you what ICWI is. What it ISN'T is some kind of idiotic "oxymoron" or "marketing nonsense". You CLEARLY had absolutely no idea what ICWI was. But I'll bet you do now, don't you? "Marketing nonsense" indeed.

You still don't really know what it means, and how it really works.

 

[Tam]

Unlike some people, I don't need to make up nonsense to sound like I didn't lose an argument. Look, here's how it works, and the difference between CWI and ICWI.

CWI, like what the US Aegis system uses, involves the SPY-1D providing midcourse updates for the missile all the way until the last few seconds of the engagement. The SPG-62 (the radar component of the Mk99) then lights up the target in the final moments of an engagement, and there is no question about the ability of the ESSM or SM-2's ability to pick up the illumination and ride the beam in all the way to impact.

That's actually questionable, because radar seekers have antennas that are so small, and size matters with radio antennas for picking up signals over distance.

Another thing is that the missiles can be potentially confused if you have multiple X-band CWI sources in the battle space, including friendlies emitting their own illumination.

Furthermore, ESSM and SM-2 are fired from a VLS. That means their seekers are inert at launch and the missile has to be directed towards the target after launch by a link. What you are describing if the missile has to ride all the way from its launch point to the target works only if the missile is on an external arm launcher, which pivots and elevates the missile to the direction of the target. The missile would have to lock before launch.

And once again, if you light up a target with CWI from a distant range, lets say 150km, their RWRs would detect it and the countermeasures would be enacted. One of those countermeasures could be a HARM missile towards you, or a straight up ASM fired because your CWI betrayed your location.

Any missile fired off from a VLS has to be data linked so it can be controlled and turned around.

The SPG-62 radar is a transmit-only mechanical radar that is slaved to the SPY-1D. Therefore there is none of this bullshit going on: "Continuous Wave means both receiver and transmitter are simultaneously receiving and transmitting at the same time, and you have an infinite wave form".

Shows you don't even read things properly. I am referring to SARH principle in general, such as those in aircraft, land based SAM units, and other naval fire control units, e..g. Thales STIR. You should know that Murasame and Takanami doesn't use SPG-62 and neither does the Perries. Very likely MR90 Orekh works the same way.

Nice try, though. Because of the fact that the SPG-62 only needs to light up a target for a few seconds at a time, it can fairly quickly slew from one target to another (in succession) as more outbound missiles are arriving at their designated targets, though it can't cycle between multiple targets at the same time due to obvious physical limitations. That is why I laughed when you talked about Aegis ships having so few illuminators.

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.

Unlike the Mk99 CWI system which has no tracking functions (i.e. there is no simultaneous "receiving and transmitting" like you are trying to claim), an Orekh FCR DOES have tracking functions, and takes a missile all the way from launch to impact by providing target tracking, midcourse guidance, and at the end, illumination. That is why the 054A needs 4 illuminators where the Hobart only uses 2.

You got that correct. Do note that an Orekh can serve a missile from launch to target directly if the missile is on an arm launcher (Sov, 052B) that can point the missile to the target. Witin 40km that is doable. But if it is from a VLS (054A, Shtil VLS), the missile will have to be data linked and it can used to extend the range further.

And this is why the Hobart compensates with the SPY-1D tracking the targets and guiding missiles via data link on their initial and mid phase, and the SPG-62 is free to only attend to missiles on their terminal stage.

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. 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).

That does not sound right since any AESA or phase array can digitally form separately beams, each of them can attend to a separate missile.

And no, a missile can tell when things are happening in electronic speeds, because the CW is interrupted, and there is still a gap between the first signal and the second, and that creates a data gap and a potential error or inaccuracy.

Furthermore, this isn't as accurate as pure CW, because pure CW is infinite update on range, velocity and heading measurement. The time gaps as the missile serves one missile after another is "lag".

So no, the way you describe it is not as accurate as pure CWI.

You don't really need to terminal illuminate for every missile when all you need to do is illuminate for the one that does, like I said, just keep the rest riding on a datalink until they are close enough to the target.

ICWI is a widely accepted and used term. It's not "marketing nonsense" just because you've (obviously) never heard of it before and were not able to correlate it with your original quip of "time-sharing", which you clearly didn't realize was in fact a description of ICWI. What followed was a literal barrage of verbal diarrhea attempting to cover up this lack of knowledge. Yet despite all the walls of text since then, you have never been able to specify what you thought "time-sharing" was if not ICWI, which I find to be quite humorous.

Lol you must have made that up completely did you?

This is the standard line of someone who doesn't have access to ANY textbooks and demands that the other person go find them. Sorry, but you claim it, you provide it; that or GTFO.

Please. As if these activities are internet worthy.

No, they won't. And the fact that you say "block" proves my point. Blocks invariably refer to new production missiles, not refitted old ones. Thank you for proving my point.

MRDA also intends to update earlier Exocets with the new radar update.

I applaud your attempt to move the goal posts YET AGAIN and try to get the conversation lost in the weeds. The subject at hand isn't quality of tracks vs quantity of tracks, but your original quip that humans wouldn't have enough time to intervene on all targets because they have less than "30 seconds" to do so (where did you get that particular number BTW?? ROFLMAO). The point is also that you completely failed to appreciate the main reason that Aegis was even developed in the first place, which was in fact to be able to remove humans from the equation altogether and automate the entire business of finding, tracking, prioritizing and attacking masses of incoming targets. And yes, this includes algorithms on determining what is clutter and removing them from the equation.

Sigh. The original reason why Aegis was made is to serve as a protective shield against Soviet bomber and missile attacks.

 

[Tam]

would have to assume the targets are "catalogized" (I hope that's the right word here, sorry if it's not)

in short it'd mean to know at what to shoot (would be tough if new info was coming in between salvos)

just thinking aloud anyway

Radar other than SAR, doesn't see form or image. It only gives you bearing, range and velocity. You have to determine if its a threat based on those factors.

But there are other ways to determine friendly or threat.

If a search radar lights up a target, the target can respond with an IFF signal to indicate its a friendly. Planes and ships also have transponders on board to ID what they are and their location. You have to take that into context when you decide to deliberately shoot an airliner or sink a merchant ship.

The other way is the RWR from your EW suite. A threat would give out its own radar, and you match that signal to a known database (this is where ELINT and SIGINT patrols trying to coax military radars gets its benefit). The kind of signal it emits also tells you what radar it is or what radar mode it is using. PRF means search radar and any civilian aircraft or ship has this. But high PRF means something is trying to lock on to you and CWI means a missile has a lock on you. The threat signal signatures are matched to the radar signatures, and bingo you got an approaching missile here and a friendly there.

 

[Untoldpain]

Where is Deino when you need him.......

 

[Jura The idiot]

Where is Deino when you need him.......

I guess it's one of the most interesting naval debates currently ongoing in Internet

by the way I like how the two are opinionated LOL now will eat my breakfast, read the new round

actually yesterday in the evening I hoped they'd go on overnight

 

[Iron Man]

Oh, what so special about ATECS? Is there anything about that being better than the CMS used on 052D/056/055?

I just love how you sandwiched 056 right in between 052D and 055 as if to insinuate that they are the same caliber of CMS. See, it's this kind of stupid intellectually dishonest crap that makes debating with you tedious.

I just noticed how much of your conversation and replies are non technical and irrelevant in proving the point.

I've LONG noticed how much of your conversation and replies are pseudo-technical and gleaned straight from Wikipedia.

And neither does it make it better than the Chinese CMS in order to somehow claim that ATECS have greater capability.

It's not my claim. And it's certainly not a stretch when ATECS is present on much larger ships tasked with more complicated missions than what the 056 is even remotely capable of.

Neither do you. But then, one gauge of a CMS is ahead on the road how many weapons it already supports. If you still need to add this functionality that the other already exists, the other is using its time to go further.

Whatever the CMS the Chinese ships are using, it already supports a longer list of weapons. Something like the HQ-10 alone would have required its own libraries.

And the HHQ-10 makes the 056's CMS more complicated than ATECS? This is hairbrained to the point of utter inanity.

Oh, show to me otherwise.

Sorry, but I don't have to show you shit. You made the inane claim, you back up the inane claim. Again, claiming that there are green-skinned Martians on the far side of the Moon and then demanding that I prove you wrong is stupid.

Actually distance between radar related equipment matters completely with a ship. The SMART-L only needs to blank out only for a short arc when the beam traverses the mast. Assuming those bulbs on the mast are EW and not SATCOM.

I would say EW being right next to the search radar, that would amount to sufficient interference. In ship design nothing is perfect and quite a lot of things are a compromise. The ideal location for the OPS-24 should be on top of the mast, but it may have been deemed too heavy for this and is located lower to reduce the center of gravity so the ship won't tilt when it is turning fast. However, you cannot also question where the EW suite goes, and the location of it in the ship is correct and conforms to where EW suites are located in other ships.

If you don't put the search radar on top of the mast, the most logical location next is the top of the second mast to the aft. That is where many other designs have this, and you can only look to see where the SMART-L you like to quip about is located in every ship that isn't a carrier.

Again, who died and made YOU a naval ship designer? How did you in your expert opinion determine what is a "short arc" vs what is not? Who allowed you to make the statement "I would say EW being right next to the search radar, that would amount to sufficient interference". ROFLMAO! The fact is, you literally don't know anything but you are trying so hard to sound like you. You had no idea what blanking was but are still now trying to make up for it by making up pseudo-technical nonsense that you can't back up.

You still don't really know what it means, and how it really works.

View attachment 48647

So you have attached a photo of a ICWI caption. Was this photo supposed to mean something? Was that somehow supposed to imply that you knew what ICWI was? Because you clearly didn't. What this photo represents is your lack of an adequate rational response to me showcasing your poor internet search skills in my previous post. Since you had nothing to respond with, you post up this graphic, like that somehow explains everything. LOL