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.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. "
Correct, I said all of this. AND?"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.
"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.
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??? LOLYou 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.
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.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.
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.Does it explain how it works?
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.
View attachment 48665
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.
Yup. Just repeating marketing material.
Another article with ZERO information about how ICWI works.
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.
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.But according to this
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.
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?? LOLOLOLOLWith US the predominant defense supplier and the predominant defense partner....