I have already provided the source:
Written Evidence submitted by Lockheed Martin UK at their parliament which advises the RN to develop a CEC architecture to '' to share raw sensor data across all sensors and effectors, enabling any asset to engage any threat ''
That means that such a capability presently does not exist as of now.
Maybe not. Maybe they just haven't told everyone about relay guidance but they have said they have not purchased the US trademarked type definition of CEC which involves the network picture forming and command of battlespace. Yeah UK doesn't have this and wanted to consider it but has not yet equipped their Daring with it.
I don't remember claiming that your ASAT wasn't developed by you. The point is India has developed an HTK BMD interceptor (now one more PDV & an ASAT), so an LRSAM is well within the reach of the Indian mil-industry complex. It is already underway.
You said not reverse engineered from Russian types so I interpreted as suggesting the Chinese ones are. Okay.
Again, that means that both you and us are developing similar MRSAM systems (with AESA radars, dual pulse motors & active seekers) without reverse engineering at the same time. I don't see the advantage of you having a head start there.
Yes for the 50km to 150km range SAM that will replace HQ-16 in Chinese military. And your replacement of Akash is Akash NG.
I said before. I consider HQ-9 to be Chinese development from S-300PMU and lineage trace back to S-300 but since HQ-9 first variant, already diverged. Akash is Indian development on Kub and lineage trace back to Kub but since then Akash itself has already diverged especially in radar and command modules etc.
So HQ-9 is Chinese. Akash is indian. HQ-16 is Chinese also. It is same as HQ-9 pattern but lineage based on Buk. It is developed with Almaz Antey as consultant who brought Buk technology. But HQ-16 in command, radars, guidance, even fuel and rocket motor has since diverged from any form of Buk except the missile's shape itself. Even that has changed a little.
These three are all Chinese and Indian. Barak-8 is different from these examples because it is not yet domesticated like Akash has been. The same for EL/M-2248. This is where I mean the systems that are used to perform CEC is Israeli and they should also have CEC capability because they own these two main systems while they also can easily create datalinks. The datalinks of Kolkata to perform that CEC is Indian.
As for developing new MRSAM systems. Well your's is Akash NG which is still in development. HQ-22 is sort of ours and has long been in service. It is a new missile shape and the system behind it is from HQ-12 missile which itself is a development from KS-1 which was rejected by PLA in favor of HQ-16 but purchased by Myanmar I think. HQ-22 has recently been sold to Serbia who also considered S-350.
Now HQ-22 is a bit larger and longer than HQ-16 with much longer range. There is another missile for Type 055 quad packing in each cell. HQ-16 may be getting old but it is a good missile. Just like Aim-7 was a good missile it is still developed on and on into ESSM. I do not believe HQ-16 will become phased out. It will just receive radar seeker and fuel upgrade. Maybe even engine upgrade but definitely software, ECCM and command and guidance upgrades to keep it modern. The size of HQ-16 can allow it to become close to HQ-22 ranges which is around 150km.
Naval CEC for area defence missiles. Still not demonstrated or no proof for that exists.
The only evidence I can give is the fact (as already posted and talked about) there are multiple mentions of relay guidance being used by HQ-7 way in the past already. And the fact that Type 054A, Type 052D, Type 055, Type 075, and Type 002 all have onboard dedicated high bandwidth arrays just for this exact task of air defence CEC with SAMs and fire control radars from different platforms. And the fact that relayed guidance existed also with cruise missiles and things like anti-ship ballistic missiles and HGVs. If those instruments are all onboard and not part of search, fire control, EW etc and relayed guidance has said to be performed with multiple types of weapons, and at least said to have been done decades ago on naval HQ-7.
Relay guidance of HHQ-16/9 by those arrays and datalinks are not published in English media. It doesn't mean they have not been demonstrated or it doesn't exist. Sharing basic telemetry data of target is not something I would expect to be beyond modern PLAN ships and these missiles because it is quite important, it is not difficult technically, and all the expected equipment on the outside of the ships are showing. This is just for modern SAM relay guidance. Where we know cruise missile and higher speed and altitude weapons already use relay guidance.
Anyway at this point nothing much more to say and people can believe whatever they prefer to believe.
okay it's all either not existing or magic like DF-26 guidance is magic and all the HGV demonstrations of in service weapons are also guided by magic.
