Formidable Class Frigate

[Transient]

If you are engaging in long distance. Missile against missile interceptions are likely to be in distances under 40 km. That's because sea skimmers won't be seen in the radar horizon until it comes to that range. Consider that an HHQ-16 or Shtil-1 will have a slant range of 50km against aircraft, and half of that against missiles. Once its in range, SARH has advantages over ARH, one of that is the radiant energy projected in thin pencil beams are far stronger than any seeker located emitter. That means your lock ons would be faster, more positive, burn through the ECM, differentiate against clutter and decoy.

If you are referring to targeting beyond the radar horizon, which is basically missile vs. plane interceptions, as against missile vs. missile interceptions, then you see the advantage of ARH. But for frigates, where SAMs have a more point defense quality, I'm not exactly seeing the advantage of using ARH.

And there's another advantage that active missiles have over SARH missiles. Active missiles need no FCRs. Sure, time-sharing reduces the amount of time each fire-channel is tied up to each missile, but SARH still require their illumination for end-game guidance. That means that in a given amount of time, a far more limited number of ASMs can be engaged by a system using SARH missiles as opposed to a system using active homing missiles, because missile guidance is provided sequentially as opposed to concurrently as with active missiles. This does not matter so much at long range, but at shorter ranges as you described, this will be a critical advantage gained by having active missiles. Also, with the engagement occurring far closer to the ship, any enemy ECM encountered will be of far less effectiveness, further diminishing the advantage of illumination power that FCRs provide.

Another quality of SARH is that in theory, its better against low RCS or VLO targets. That's because SARH is bistatic in principle, whereas ARH is monostatic. VLO techniques focus in preventing radar from reflecting back to the same location as the emitter (monostatic principle). SARH works because the receiver is not the same as the emitter. This works simultaneously with the much stronger emissions, and the fact that the emissions are coming out from the surface, not projecting downward against the target, and that means the emissions won't be reflecting off the surface to create clutter.

With low altitude ASMs, I'm not as certain as you that the FCR beamwidth would not strike the sea surface causing sea clutter problems at the SARH missile's receiver. At higher altitudes, the disadvantage of low power for the active missile's radar seeker as you cited will instead be an advantage, since very little energy will survive the trip to the sea surface and back to the missile's receiver.

I'm not even sure which sensor is doing the uplink, not sure what it's update rate would be.

It's not the sensor doing the uplink that's the problem. It is the target information update rate that's provided by the Top Plate that is. The Top Plate's target information refresh rate is very low, even lower than that of the herakles which provides an target info update rate of 1 sec. As I recall, target info refresh rate is something which you have wrongly accused the herakles of being less than ideal for. (you thought it updated at a 2-3 sec rate as opposed to the actual 1 sec rate. Incidentally, the Top Plate is the one that provides only a 2-3 second target info update rate.)

not necessarily, you also have a much more powerful processor on the ship compared to what the seeker has. So, it will not need to be 10,000 times more powerful to discriminate the same target.

No, SARH missiles have their processor on board. Target discrimination is done by SARH missiles themselves - the FCR only provides illumination. Only TVM missiles have their processor on the ground. This method of guidance has mostly fallen out of favor since processors have been small, light,cheap and powerful enough to be placed on board.

I'm saying that something with similar layout to top plate is more ideal. Suppose they are the same generation of sensors, then what layout would you rather have?

Thing is, soon there won't be such a comparison anymore since the latest generation combat radars are all MFRs. Which goes to prove my point about what radar developers see as ideal.

when did search range become detection range? You can search for planes at 250 km, but you probably won't detect low flying super hornets.

Of course the brochure meant max range at altitude. What are you trying to prove with your statement?

ask the developer.

Then until official documentation says that electronic scanning is done in both elevation and azimuth, I don't think you should bring it up here. Right?

 

[crobato]

And there's another advantage that active missiles have over SARH missiles. Active missiles need no FCRs. Sure, time-sharing reduces the amount of time each fire-channel is tied up to each missile, but SARH still require their illumination for end-game guidance. That means that in a given amount of time, a far more limited number of ASMs can be engaged by a system using SARH missiles as opposed to a system using active homing missiles, because missile guidance is provided sequentially as opposed to concurrently as with active missiles. This does not matter so much at long range, but at shorter ranges as you described, this will be a critical advantage gained by having active missiles. Also, with the engagement occurring far closer to the ship, any enemy ECM encountered will be of far less effectiveness, further diminishing the advantage of illumination power that FCRs provide.

Sorry but ARH missiles do require FCR. Not illuminators, but a fire control radar that still actively tracks targets. ARH missiles are not launched out there in the cold to hunt the targets by themselves [a situation that can lead to blue on blue incident by the way]. The FCRs provide the target data before launch, then continues to guide and cue the missile via datalink during its midphase flight. In fact, during midphase, there is no operational difference between SARH and ARH---the true difference is only in the terminal stage.

Also as a matter of fact, there are strict limitations in the number of ARH missiles you can fire because the FCR can only update a limited number of such missiles. Among fighter jets, that can range from four to eight. A ship should be much hgher of course. For that matter, the FCR can only manage to track and engage finite number of targets, even though that number can be as high as a hundred targets being tracked and two dozen may be engaged (as an example).

With low altitude ASMs, I'm not as certain as you that the FCR beamwidth would not strike the sea surface causing sea clutter problems at the SARH missile's receiver. At higher altitudes, the disadvantage of low power for the active missile's radar seeker as you cited will instead be an advantage, since very little energy will survive the trip to the sea surface and back to the missile's receiver.

There is certainly going to be some clutter, but the angle from the source emitter is from the surface, so it's coming from an angle. On a missile's viewpoint, you're practically on a look down approach, that means you have the angle of the water staring right back at you. That's a big difference in the angle. The SARH missile because it removes the emitter, might have more space for additional computational resources to further distinguish clutter.

 

[Transient]

Sorry but ARH missiles do require FCR. Not illuminators, but a fire control radar that still actively tracks targets. ARH missiles are not launched out there in the cold to hunt the targets by themselves [a situation that can lead to blue on blue incident by the way]. The FCRs provide the target data before launch, then continues to guide and cue the missile via datalink during its midphase flight. In fact, during midphase, there is no operational difference between SARH and ARH---the true difference is only in the terminal stage.

Also as a matter of fact, there are strict limitations in the number of ARH missiles you can fire because the FCR can only update a limited number of such missiles. Among fighter jets, that can range from four to eight. A ship should be much hgher of course. For that matter, the FCR can only manage to track and engage finite number of targets, even though that number can be as high as a hundred targets being tracked and two dozen may be engaged (as an example).

Yes, I'm perfectly aware that mid course guidance updates are required even by active missiles. The info they rely on for mid course guidnace isn't necessarily provided by FCRs though, even for SARH missiles. The SM-2s for example, do not use info from SPG-62s for their mid course guidance.

With short range engagements as described by you, (say missiles coming in from 20-30km out), the time required to sequentially provide terminal illumination to all the SAMs may be more than the flight time of the ASMs. In that case the active missiles will have a big advantage.

With all the advantages I listed, Tphuang's insistence that SARH missile systems are definitely better is called into question. I, however have not put forth a position that either is definitely better than the other. As this discussion has amply proven, both have their qualities and advantages. The USN's adoption of active terminal guidance for the SM-6 proves my point. The SM-6 allows for over the horizon engagements that SARH missiles don't allow for.

There is certainly going to be some clutter, but the angle from the source emitter is from the surface, so it's coming from an angle. On a missile's viewpoint, you're practically on a look down approach, that means you have the angle of the water staring right back at you. That's a big difference in the angle. The SARH missile because it removes the emitter, might have more space for additional computational resources to further distinguish clutter.

The correlation between processor size and capability is far, FAR smaller than in the past. You still think we're in the 60's?

 

[crobato]

With all the advantages I listed, Tphuang's insistence that SARH missile systems are definitely better is called into question. I, however have not put forth a position that either is definitely better than the other. As this discussion has amply proven, both have their qualities and advantages. The USN's adoption of active terminal guidance for the SM-6 proves my point. The SM-6 allows for over the horizon engagements that SARH missiles don't allow for.

The SM-6 isn't something I would call that would best fit a frigate. You're talking about an area defense destroyer. A frigate's anti air would be more right along in point defense. Within the horizon, there remains distinct advantages to using SARH.

Along the thread, there are also two other aspects I failed to mention. One, is that unlike a missile seeker, a surface illuminator can use electronic scanning techniques that can focus into a tight pencil beam. The second is that the illumination beam also has a jamming and interference quality of its own that can affect the target missile if the target isn't protected well enough from ECM.

The correlation between processor size and capability is far, FAR smaller than in the past. You still think we're in the 60's?

We're not talking of fighter radars here. We're talking about missile seekers. Missile seekers are still cramped by hell for space and weight for a whole variety of reasons.

 

[Transient]

The SM-6 isn't something I would call that would best fit a frigate. You're talking about an area defense destroyer. A frigate's anti air would be more right along in point defense.

Tphuang has taken ship size constraints out of determining what's ideal.

Within the horizon, there remains distinct advantages to using SARH.

As I have shown, not as distinct as you and Tphuang argued for.

Along the thread, there are also two other aspects I failed to mention. One, is that unlike a missile seeker, a surface illuminator can use electronic scanning techniques that can focus into a tight pencil beam.

Nothing more than a rehash of your 'more power from FCRs' argument.

The second is that the illumination beam also has a jamming and interference quality of its own that can affect the target missile if the target isn't protected well enough from ECM.

This sounds desperate. Are you cooking abilities up?

We're not talking of fighter radars here. We're talking about missile seekers. Missile seekers are still cramped by hell for space and weight for a whole variety of reasons.

Do you have evidence that any ARH missile suffers more from space constraints than a SARH missile due simply to having an ARH seeker?

 

[crobato]

Tphuang has taken ship size constraints out of determining what's ideal.



As I have shown, not as distinct as you and Tphuang argued for.




Nothing more than a rehash of your 'more power from FCRs' argument.

You have not answered this quite in satisfaction.

This sounds desperate. Are you cooking abilities up?

Not really. STT does interfere with another radar's ability, and this has also lead to an idea where one radar can jam the other directly.

Do you have evidence that any ARH missile suffers more from space constraints than a SARH missile due simply to having an ARH seeker?

Yes. Having the Klystron/Magentron/Travelling Wave Tube added, plus the batteries and the ventilation for it. Not small for either the two.

 

[Transient]

You have not answered this quite in satisfaction.

There is no need to go round in loops. Arguments rehashed in another form are still the same old, same old, answers for which I have already provided to earlier.

Not really. STT does interfere with another radar's ability, and this has also lead to an idea where one radar can jam the other directly.

Which means to say that there isn't a shipboard FCR with this capability, and you came up with this capability yourself.

Yes. Having the Klystron/Magentron/Travelling Wave Tube added, plus the batteries and the ventilation for it. Not small for either the two.

You got me there. But the space isn't necessarily traded off for processor power. There are many other places where space can be regained in return for other trade offs.

 

[tphuang]

It's not the sensor doing the uplink that's the problem. It is the target information update rate that's provided by the Top Plate that is. The Top Plate's target information refresh rate is very low, even lower than that of the herakles which provides an target info update rate of 1 sec. As I recall, target info refresh rate is something which you have wrongly accused the herakles of being less than ideal for. (you thought it updated at a 2-3 sec rate as opposed to the actual 1 sec rate. Incidentally, the Top Plate is the one that provides only a 2-3 second target info update rate.)

astor-15 needs updates every second. So if the update rate for fire control system is 2 second, then it would send obsolete data. Shtil might need updates much less frequently. So in that case, it's not a problem for the fire control system to update tracking data less frequently.

No, SARH missiles have their processor on board. Target discrimination is done by SARH missiles themselves - the FCR only provides illumination. Only TVM missiles have their processor on the ground. This method of guidance has mostly fallen out of favor since processors have been small, light,cheap and powerful enough to be placed on board.

Until it gets to the very end when it locates the target, the FCR will still need to discriminate the target in order to provide accurate targetting info. So yes, having more processor to analyze the return data will definitely help. What were you expecting? FCR would foward all of the returned signals to SARH and get it to process them?
btw, do you have a computer engineering degree? from comp point of view, you can never hope to replace the performance of a huge dedicated machine with a small processor. TVM is used on most long range SAMs.

Thing is, soon there won't be such a comparison anymore since the latest generation combat radars are all MFRs. Which goes to prove my point about what radar developers see as ideal.

you can turn something like top plate into a MFR too. Note, I don't have a problem with MFR, but suggest to enhance the system by adding VSR that allows MFR to spend more time tracking data.

Of course the brochure meant max range at altitude. What are you trying to prove with your statement?

what I'm saying is that search range and detection range is different. For search range, we had 300 km for top plate and 230 km vs fighters. So, if you have 250 km search range for Herakles, detection range vs fighters will be smaller than that.

Then until official documentation says that electronic scanning is done in both elevation and azimuth, I don't think you should bring it up here. Right?

let's see why I even brought Sea Eagle into this conversation.

For something like Sea Eagle which does electronic scanning in both azimuth and elevation, the range should be even greater.

so basically, I brought this in saying that an improvement on Top plate using more modern scanning techniques would increase the range. And that goes back to my consistent theme of using similar generation of top plate + FCR vs Herakles. Now you for some reason, got obssessed with whether or not it's electronic scanning in both elevation and azimuth.

as for official documentation, what are you waiting for exactly? a pla article? Is that good enough for you? a JDW article? that couldn't even get the number of FCRs on 054A correct When it comes to sensors on 054A, the people on Chinese forums actually get them right more often than not. So, don't give me this kind of bs about waiting for an officila documentation, you won't get one.

With all the advantages I listed, Tphuang's insistence that SARH missile systems are definitely better is called into question. I, however have not put forth a position that either is definitely better than the other.

I would call this quite a distortion of the debate.

Take a look at our posts, it's clear that you insisted ARH solution is better the entire way due to its ability to engage more targets. I was simply saying that SARH still had some merits in that you can get more acucrate illumination of target. In fact, I actually stated Aster is better than shtil.

Tphuang has taken ship size constraints out of determining what's ideal.

another distortion

There is no need to go round in loops. Arguments rehashed in another form are still the same old, same old, answers for which I have already provided to earlier.

that's some kind of hypocrisy. You are the one who managed to bring back a debate that we had in SDF, feeling the need to restate them again on DT.

 

[Transient]

astor-15 needs updates every second. So if the update rate for fire control system is 2 second, then it would send obsolete data. Shtil might need updates much less frequently. So in that case, it's not a problem for the fire control system to update tracking data less frequently.

I would like to know where you got that Asters require updates eery second, and how you assumed that Shtil might need updates less frequently, presumably without any loss is capability.

What were you expecting? FCR would foward all of the returned signals to SARH and get it to process them?

It sure seems like you think that. SARH missiles only take the reflected signals and process the information received. The shipboard FCR does no processing for the SARH missile, unless TVM is used. TVM was used as a result of processing deficiencies in the past. It so happens that most long ranged SAMs were designed in that era. It is not used anymore. The SM-6 doesn't use TVM, for example.

you can turn something like top plate into a MFR too. Note, I don't have a problem with MFR, but suggest to enhance the system by adding VSR that allows MFR to spend more time tracking data.

As I recall you said that a MFR doing missile updates was less than ideal.

what I'm saying is that search range and detection range is different. For search range, we had 300 km for top plate and 230 km vs fighters. So, if you have 250 km search range for Herakles, detection range vs fighters will be smaller than that.

All the brochure stated was a 250km search range. No mention of whether what that was measured against.

so basically, I brought this in saying that an improvement on Top plate using more modern scanning techniques would increase the range. And that goes back to my consistent theme of using similar generation of top plate + FCR vs Herakles. Now you for some reason, got obssessed with whether or not it's electronic scanning in both elevation and azimuth.

as for official documentation, what are you waiting for exactly? a pla article? Is that good enough for you? a JDW article? that couldn't even get the number of FCRs on 054A correct When it comes to sensors on 054A, the people on Chinese forums actually get them right more often than not. So, don't give me this kind of bs about waiting for an officila documentation, you won't get one.

So you want to get into the "radars can be comparable if we disregard cost, weight, size, power and stealth constraints' argument again?

I would call this quite a distortion of the debate.

Take a look at our posts, it's clear that you insisted ARH solution is better the entire way due to its ability to engage more targets. I was simply saying that SARH still had some merits in that you can get more acucrate illumination of target. In fact, I actually stated Aster is better than shtil.

Negative. I have put forth no absolute position that SARH missiles are a better solution than ARH missiles the way you did, as you "insist".

To remind you - "I insist that having an illuminator is better"

another distortion

Dare you say otherwise with your deft skirting of the issue whenever I bring up the constraints involved?

that's some kind of hypocrisy. You are the one who managed to bring back a debate that we had in SDF, feeling the need to restate them again on DT.

Naturally I was talking about what was already stated on this forum.

 

[Tasman]

I'm finding that this discussion seems to be getting increasingly technical and a bit beyond me. That's probably because of my lack of technical expertise and knowledge in these areas. But it would be extremely helpful to my understanding, and maybe others, if either Transient or tphuang (with all due respect to a moderator) or both could relate what they are saying more directly to the Formidable class frigates.

Cheers

 

[tphuang]

I'm finding that this discussion seems to be getting increasingly technical and a bit beyond me. That's probably because of my lack of technical expertise and knowledge in these areas. But it would be extremely helpful to my understanding, and maybe others, if either Transient or tphuang (with all due respect to a moderator) or both could relate what they are saying more directly to the Formidable class frigates.

Cheers

yes, you are right, we got way off track of what we were talking about. Anyway, Transient had the last say, I will just leave the debate at this point.

I do aplogize for getting off topic so much.

 

[Tasman]

Thanks for that tphuang. I know how easy it is to follow something through in detail and gradually get away from the thread. I find myself doing it more than I would like!

Cheers

 

[crobato]

Yes, I'm perfectly aware that mid course guidance updates are required even by active missiles. The info they rely on for mid course guidnace isn't necessarily provided by FCRs though, even for SARH missiles. The SM-2s for example, do not use info from SPG-62s for their mid course guidance.

Don't confuse FCR with illuminators. Orekhs and SPG-62s are illuminators, they're not FCRs, more like glorified emitters that are part of the real FCR. FCR is the term Fire Control Radar and that includees a complete system that has recievers.

 

[crobato]

With short range engagements as described by you, (say missiles coming in from 20-30km out), the time required to sequentially provide terminal illumination to all the SAMs may be more than the flight time of the ASMs. In that case the active missiles will have a big advantage.

Short range engagements? I am talking about terminal range engagement; where the missile can be coming from maybe long range.

Regardless of the range of your SAMs, it is very difficult to pick up a sea skimmer beyond and below the radar horizon at a very low altitude, until the missile pops up in the horizon around 40km or so. RCS and ECM measures will add to the blanketing.

That's why the bulk of anti missile interception is going to be under 40km or so.

Easier to deal with supersonic missiles because they are coming from up high, higher above the hoirzon enabling earlier detection, and follow more predictable paths. The higher the target missile flies from the surface the more you can differentiate it from surface clutter. ARH becomes less of a disadvantage.

The real problem is from missiles that just about hug the sea surface. You won't see them until they are within the horizon, and you need to be able to differentiate them from the sea surface clutter, when the clutter reflections can only be as much as 3 meters away from the target reflections.

 

[Transient]

Short range engagements? I am talking about terminal range engagement; where the missile can be coming from maybe long range.

Regardless of the range of your SAMs, it is very difficult to pick up a sea skimmer beyond and below the radar horizon at a very low altitude, until the missile pops up in the horizon around 40km or so. RCS and ECM measures will add to the blanketing.

That's why the bulk of anti missile interception is going to be under 40km or so.

When I said 'short range engagements I was referring to low level, supersonic targets which broke the radar horizon at a range of 30 to 40km. It is precisely this engagement-time constrained scenario where ARH missiles have a distinct edge over SARH missiles. Assuming a Sunburn missile raid (speed M2.5) was detected at 33km, the time till missile impact is 40s. Taking into account time of flight for SAM , system response time and minimum SAM intercept range, that leaves very limited window of time for illumination for SARH missiles, which have to be sequentially guided. it is very conceivable that the window of time allowable for illumination may not be enough if there are enough ASM missiles inbound. ARH missiles suffer no such disadvantage.

Easier to deal with supersonic missiles because they are coming from up high, higher above the hoirzon enabling earlier detection, and follow more predictable paths. The higher the target missile flies from the surface the more you can differentiate it from surface clutter. ARH becomes less of a disadvantage.

The real problem is from missiles that just about hug the sea surface. You won't see them until they are within the horizon, and you need to be able to differentiate them from the sea surface clutter, when the clutter reflections can only be as much as 3 meters away from the target reflections.

Your depiction of clutter effects and ECM effects on the ARH missile seeker is overly emphasized. There were tests conducted with the Aster against sea-skimming targets under heavy ECM. They were successful.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/aster.htm
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRNews1/FRNews01/FR010715.htm

 

[crobato]

When I said 'short range engagements I was referring to low level, supersonic targets which broke the radar horizon at a range of 30 to 40km. It is precisely this engagement-time constrained scenario where ARH missiles have a distinct edge over SARH missiles. Assuming a Sunburn missile raid (speed M2.5) was detected at 33km, the time till missile impact is 40s. Taking into account time of flight for SAM , system response time and minimum SAM intercept range, that leaves very limited window of time for illumination for SARH missiles, which have to be sequentially guided. it is very conceivable that the window of time allowable for illumination may not be enough if there are enough ASM missiles inbound. ARH missiles suffer no such disadvantage.

That's more like how ARH lock before launch would work, but that's not permissible from a SAM.

The SAM has to be fired vertically, the seeker is inert, and the FCR still has to turn the missile around and midphase guide it to the target---even at close ranges. At the same time, the FCR still has to do IFF interrogation, then allocate each missile to each target (at best two) to make sure you don't have too many missiles trying to engage one single target, or even try to lock on to the tail of another SAM. Only during the latter half of the SAM flight, does the seeker turn live, and then it has to hunt and lock on to the target.

When you take into account all that, that does not give you much time at all.

At closer ranges, the locking time of a SARH is much faster than an ARH. F-15s have demonstrated this by snap on attacks using Sparrows by "xraying" their targets at closer range. That is because of the intensity of the radar beam and reflection. Your locking time is very dependent on that. When you have to deal with ECM and clutter, your locking time becomes more extended. You need something to burn through the electronic warfare fog with such clarity and strength.

Your depiction of clutter effects and ECM effects on the ARH missile seeker is overly emphasized. There were tests conducted with the Aster against sea-skimming targets under heavy ECM. They were successful.

Its not whether they are successful or not. Clinical tests are never the same as battlefield conditions. You can always quote the many tests missile past in peacetime, but when the shit hits the fan, things don't always work out as they are tested. Having enough is never actually enough.

 

[Transient]

That's more like how ARH lock before launch would work, but that's not permissible from a SAM.

The SAM has to be fired vertically, the seeker is inert, and the FCR still has to turn the missile around and midphase guide it to the target---even at close ranges. At the same time, the FCR still has to do IFF interrogation, then allocate each missile to each target (at best two) to make sure you don't have too many missiles trying to engage one single target, or even try to lock on to the tail of another SAM. Only during the latter half of the SAM flight, does the seeker turn live, and then it has to hunt and lock on to the target.

When you take into account all that, that does not give you much time at all.

My depiction had absolutely nothing to do with lock on before launch. You can take it that both the SARH and the ARH require the same amount of time for mid course guidance. The difference is where they transition to the need for terminal illumination, and that's where the ARH missiles concurrent illumination for all ARH SAMs handle themselves better in eliminating a saturation attack than SARH missiles.

At closer ranges, the locking time of a SARH is much faster than an ARH. F-15s have demonstrated this by snap on attacks using Sparrows by "xraying" their targets at closer range. That is because of the intensity of the radar beam and reflection. Your locking time is very dependent on that. When you have to deal with ECM and clutter, your locking time becomes more extended. You need something to burn through the electronic warfare fog with such clarity and strength.

Terminal illumination time for ARH missiles are irrelevant - that is their advantage over SARH missiles. They suffer no such constraints imposed because they have no need to share a fire channel the way SARH missiles do.

Its not whether they are successful or not. Clinical tests are never the same as battlefield conditions. You can always quote the many tests missile past in peacetime, but when the shit hits the fan, things don't always work out as they are tested. .

They don't always work out as planned, but neither do they always not work out as planned. The tests are likely made to validate the performance with respect to design specs. As far as the tests are concerned, they seemed to have exceeded expectations.

Having enough is never actually enough

Easy words uttered by those who do not consider what tradeoffs are being made elsewhere.

 

[crobato]

I was sure that the Sparrow was extensively tested and exceeded expectations before it went to Vietnam. So? As for testing they only need to meet a certain specification but what if the specification is set low enough so you can succeed and have enough reason to get a budget? Corporations aren't as honest as you think.

My depiction had absolutely nothing to do with lock on before launch. You can take it that both the SARH and the ARH require the same amount of time for mid course guidance. The difference is where they transition to the need for terminal illumination, and that's where the ARH missiles concurrent illumination for all ARH SAMs handle themselves better in eliminating a saturation attack than SARH missiles.

Not necessarily. SARH missiles can go into terminal earlier. The R-27 is said to go into terminal at 25km while the R-77 goes at 16km. And you forgot, early Sparrows go terminal as soon as they are launched. It was only much later, did Sparrows acquire midphase datalinked control.

If I launch both missiles with the targets now detected and approaching from >40km, the SARH missiles can go terminal right on the spot while the ARH missile can't until it is 20-25km at the most. Remember, the shipboard illuminator is not only magnitudes stroner but has the flexibiltiy to sharpen its beam further.

that's where the ARH missiles concurrent illumination for all ARH SAMs handle themselves better in eliminating a saturation attack than SARH missiles.

Concurrent illumination? What the hell is that? The reflected signal from one missile is useless to another missile. Valid data from radar requires you need to know the origin point of the radar pulse and time of its emission, basically your own, then compare that to the reflected signal.

I don't know if ship SAMs can do this, but F-15s have a flood mode, where the radar is searchlighting into a cone right in front of the plane, and anything that gets illuminated within gets shot by a Sparrow.

Terminal illumination time for ARH missiles are irrelevant - that is their advantage over SARH missiles. They suffer no such constraints imposed because they have no need to share a fire channel the way SARH missiles do.

You really don't understand what is going on. What the illuminators are doing is juggling, lighting up a fixed number of targets concurrently. Once a target is eliminated, it illuminates another. When the missile is terminal, it no longer needs its datalink channel and can free that for another missile.

In theory, the ARH missile can handle more targets because they are autonomous. In practice, ARH missiles are equally as limited because FCRs (not to be confused with illuminators) still need to guide them in midphase flight, and every FCR has a fixed number of datalink channels that it can use to guide each and every missile.

 

[Transient]

I see now why you cannot understand me. All along I was referring to the end game illumination by the illuminators (which for the sake of simplicity I referred to as FCRs).

Not necessarily. SARH missiles can go into terminal earlier. The R-27 is said to go into terminal at 25km while the R-77 goes at 16km. And you forgot, early Sparrows go terminal as soon as they are launched. It was only much later, did Sparrows acquire midphase datalinked control.

If I launch both missiles with the targets now detected and approaching from >40km, the SARH missiles can go terminal right on the spot while the ARH missile can't until it is 20-25km at the most. Remember, the shipboard illuminator is not only magnitudes stroner but has the flexibiltiy to sharpen its beam further.

Not really. When end-game illumination is required is probably determined by the target-positional ambiguity of the radar providing mid course guidance for the missile. It is not an advantage for SARH missiles to transition to terminal guidance early - that only ties up the illuminator for a longer period of time. As I said earlier, end game illumination is an area where there exists a major disadvantage for SARH missiles - the need to provide illumination sequentially (for one target before changing to another for another SAM) is a bottleneck compared to ARH missiles where all the ARH missiles provide their own end game illumination (hence the word 'concurrently' being used by me)

You really don't understand what is going on. What the illuminators are doing is juggling, lighting up a fixed number of targets concurrently. Once a target is eliminated, it illuminates another. When the missile is terminal, it no longer needs its datalink channel and can free that for another missile.

Precisely what i mean by 'sequential' illumination of targets. ARH missiles suffer no such deficiency.

In practice, ARH missiles are equally as limited because FCRs (not to be confused with illuminators) still need to guide them in midphase flight, and every FCR has a fixed number of datalink channels that it can use to guide each and every missile.

For purposes of this discussion, since it is a matter of comparison between two systems (SARH and ARH) with the focus on end game illumination, it is natural to assume that both systems can support the same number of missiles in their mid course phase, is it not? Next, considering an engagement occurring close to the ship, it is not the number of missiles which can be supported mid-phase which is the bottleneck, but the number of missiles for which end game illumination can be provided for.

 

[crobato]

Not really. When end-game illumination is required is probably determined by the target-positional ambiguity of the radar providing mid course guidance for the missile. It is not an advantage for SARH missiles to transition to terminal guidance early - that only ties up the illuminator for a longer period of time. As I said earlier, end game illumination is an area where there exists a major disadvantage for SARH missiles - the need to provide illumination sequentially (for one target before changing to another for another SAM) is a bottleneck compared to ARH missiles where all the ARH missiles provide their own end game illumination (hence the word 'concurrently' being used by me)

The disadvantage of end game illumination for SARH missiles is only a problem if you are in a plane, not a ship. SARH requires that you have to stay there. Without it the plane can evade. But a ship isn't going to fly away soon.

It is an advantage for SARH missiles to go terminally early. That gives them more time to lock up, especially in an EW fog environment. The illuminator should have no problem picking the most threatening target, usually the one first heading towards you. Going early is best.

If I have four missile guidance datalink channels, and each illuminator can light up two targets, I can already have 8 missiles in the air, four of whom are already terminally committed, and four in the datalinks. As four targets are destroyed, I commit the next four misisles into terminal as four new targets are lighted, and I concurrently launch another four missiles and put them into datalinks.

The missile that is already being serviced by the illuminator is no longer being serviced by the datalink. In theory I can even set as many as 12 missiles, with 8 being terminally committed with two missiles per target.

Precisely what i mean by 'sequential' illumination of targets. ARH missiles suffer no such deficiency.

Not really. As long as the missile isn't terminal, it still hogs that datalink. Its only when it goes terminal when it can be released, and then you have to launch the next SAM. I cannot do what I described above. It makes a difference when a missile goes terminal at 40km compared to 20km.

For purposes of this discussion, since it is a matter of comparison between two systems (SARH and ARH) with the focus on end game illumination, it is natural to assume that both systems can support the same number of missiles in their mid course phase, is it not? Next, considering an engagement occurring close to the ship, it is not the number of missiles which can be supported mid-phase which is the bottleneck, but the number of missiles for which end game illumination can be provided for.

If its too close to the ship, the ARH SAM doesn't really work that way either when it is VLS launched. It goes up to the air, and then you need the command datalink to turn it around and downward and turn the seeker on. With a downward approach in the missile seeker view, this is where my previous arguments about surface clutter and beam intensity will come into play. What can stop for example, an ARH missile from locking on to a fellow ship? SARH has a sense of clarity with it; it ain't lighted, it's not a target.

The FCR still has to juggle. It has to make sure that one or two missiles are set to one target, and that all the targets get their due share. You can't have too many missiles attacking one target and neglecting others. Constraints like this prevent you from spamming as many missiles into the air as you like.

When you reach to this point, you should leave it to the CIWS or point defense SAMs (RAM, Barak, Croatale, etc,.)