AEGIS and AEGIS Like escort combatants of the World

Re: Indian Kolkata Class DDG

Bltizo said:

They'll get some good, decent ships out of this round of construction, but if they want to form a standard surface escort group of 3 modern frigates, a couple of modern destroyers, they will drain most of their modern fleet in a go... If it takes another 7 years to build 3 frigates and 3 destroyers it may even end up a challenge to keep up their surface combatant numbers from shrinking, let alone considering the addition of escorts for CVBGs.

Click to expand...

We''l have to see. I have to believe that since these Frigates, Destroyers, and now Carriers are all the first time they have really designed and built their own indegenous designs in all areas...despite importing various components...that they have had to go through a long learning and logistics curve


If they have applied themselves well, they have learned from this and I would expect to see the next round go significantly faster.

We shall see if they have learned.

As to numbers of escorts, a Carrier group needn't consist of five escorts. Three will do. Initially I believe one Kolkata and two of the frigates will suffice. Not having enough SSNs will be detrimental.

In 2015 I am saying they will have enough of the high end platforms to escort their two carriers to the degree I just mentioned. They will use the older vessels for the ongoing maritime duties they have until they can catch up in numbers...and like you say, depending on whether they have learned or not, they may well see a reduction in force before their numbers of new vessels does catch up.

If they have learned, then they should be alright going forward.

Re: Indian Kolkata Class DDG

tphuang said:

Jeff, the issue here is that IN has very rarely done anything on time or on budget. If you follow the livefist blog, their latest post on this topic is that IAC won't be commissioned until at least 2017.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And we have another 4 years, so there is room for this to be delayed even further.

Click to expand...

Exactly, that’s what Asif mentioned their pending porjects are now almost 300% more as budgeted initially.

what the timeline Jeff mentioned for remaining projects, keeping their past track record I have to keep my fingers cross.

What really astonished me is that, they have all type of support in terms of anything from Uncle SAM, Europe, Israel & Russia even though they have failed in almost every project.

Re: Indian Kolkata Class DDG

Jeff Head said:

We''l have to see. I have to believe that since these Frigates, Destroyers, and now Carriers are all the first time they have really designed and built their own indegenous designs in all areas...despite importing various components...that they have had to go through a long learning and logistics curve


If they have applied themselves well, they have learned from this and I would expect to see the next round go significantly faster.

We shall see if they have learned.

As to numbers of escorts, a Carrier group needn't consist of five escorts. Three will do. Initially I believe one Kolkata and two of the frigates will suffice. Not having enough SSNs will be detrimental.

In 2015 I am saying they will have enough of the high end platforms to escort their two carriers to the degree I just mentioned. They will use the older vessels for the ongoing maritime duties they have until they can catch up in numbers...and like you say, depending on whether they have learned or not, they may well see a reduction in force before their numbers of new vessels does catch up.

If they have learned, then they should be alright going forward.

Click to expand...

that is not correct, Mazagon Docks Limited first started building their first indigenous DDG back in the 1970s, in fact not soon after the 1971 Indo-Pak War Project 15 was launched, it wasn’t until some 25 years later did any of these DDGs enter active service, yes I said 25 years!!! They are INS Delhi, Mysore and Mumbai - the Delhi Class DDGs

you would have thought that was the “learning curve” but it wasn’t, the same thing happened with the FFGs and now the new generation of Kolkata Class DDGs, the story is just being repeated, they have learnt nothing, there is no road plan, the reason is as I have stated many times before, continuous governmental interference in the affairs of the military, have you seen the size of the Indian parliament? It’s impossible to many any decision without decades of discussion, by which time they have deviated from the original requirement

India is not far off China in terms of its resources, yet Indian shipbuilding and Chinese shipbuilding is like the ground and the sky, my point is, if they were to build fast, they would have done it by now, if they haven’t, they never will

Hell China launched 2 x Type 071 LPDs in the time it took India to decide to buy one second hand

Re: Indian Kolkata Class DDG

Bltizo said:

Despite this, it took the indian shipbuilding industry a whopping 7 years from launch to commissioning of every one of the three shivalik class frigates... (ten years, if we include when they were laid down)

It will take an equivalent amount of time for each of the kolkata DDGs, from being laid down to commissioning too, and that's if the first kolkata will reach its early-mid 2013 commissioning date this year...

By contrast it's taken HD and HP respectively an average of one year, two years at most, between launch and commissioning for all their 054As, with a similar timespan for the 052Cs.

Now I'm not saying the IN necessarily needs such an aggressive or effective build and commissioning rate (obviously the faster the better, if they have the crew and resources, but I believe they probably don't) -- but 7 years between launch and commissioning is abysmal. They'll get some good, decent ships out of this round of construction, but if they want to form a standard surface escort group of 3 modern frigates, a couple of modern destroyers, they will drain most of their modern fleet in a go... If it takes another 7 years to build 3 frigates and 3 destroyers it may even end up a challenge to keep up their surface combatant numbers from shrinking, let alone considering the addition of escorts for CVBGs.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't think we should compare Chinese shipbuilding to Indian shipbuilding. Chinese shipbuilding is clearly very efficient and managed quite well from all the sources I can read. You see the same successes in other major civilian shipbuilding countries like South Korea and Japan. Outside of these countries, you tend to see a lot of cost overruns and project delays. India is certainly a major offender here. But, there is no shame that they take much longer time to launch ships, if they don't have the same level of expertise or manufacturing power as China has. If China wants to be the best shipbuilding nation in the world, it shouldn't compare itself with India.

The question here was whether the carriers and escorts could be commissioned on time. I think it seems like their first indigenous carrier is suffering some real delays. It's already pushed back to 2017 and could be pushed further back. My guess is that Project 15A and 17A will suffer further delays, but how long that would be is a different questions. India has the resources and access to technology to have a good navy. We shouldn't put the same level of expectation on IN as we do with PLAN.

Re: Indian Kolkata Class DDG

asif iqbal said:

that is not correct, Mazagon Docks Limited first started building their first indigenous DDG back in the 1970s, in fact not soon after the 1971 Indo-Pak War Project 15 was launched, it wasn’t until some 25 years later did any of these DDGs enter active service, yes I said 25 years!!! They are INS Delhi, Mysore and Mumbai - the Delhi Class DDGs

Click to expand...

It is true that the Delhi Class was completely indegenously built, but my own personal feeling is that the vessels themselves were very heavily influenced by the Russian designs from the beginning, particularly the Russian built Kashin II DDGs. That's why I did not include them...but the truth is, that they were built entirely in India so I probably should have not overlooked them.

As to them taking 25 years...that simply is not the case either. It is true that they were 1st concieved in the late 1970s, but they were not approved and funded until long thereafter. Normally, for turn around and building purposes we go from two points. When were they funded/ordered? and, even more importantly, when were they laid down in the shipyard to when they are actually commissioned.

With the Delhi class you do not find that being nearly as long as the current vessels, particuarly the Kolkatas which I view as wholly designed by the Indians with much less outside influence.

Take the Delhi. Here are the particular dates for its history:

Ordered: March 1992
Laid Down: December 1992
Launched: March 1995
Commissioned: Nov 1997

That is not a terrible record for the largest class of vessel to the time the Indians had ever built. Laid down nine months after ordering. Launched less than 2 1/2 years later, and commissoned 2 1/2 years after that.

Now, the Mumbai has a little more difficulty. It was ordered, laid down and launched on the same dates as the Delhi...but was not commissioned until January 2001...over 3 years later!

That tells me that the Indians at the time were very limited in the personnel they had to do the trials and fitting out of the vessel. Or, more likely, they must have had delays in the electronics and weapons systems...so they logistically had difficulties. It seems those difficulties have continued until now.

We will see if they have overcome them with the Kolkatas and their time frames because all of them have been launched and are outfitting and they are supposed to be commissioned one each year for the next three years.

If they do that, it will imply they in fact have addressed some of their historical issues.

asif iqbal said:

is not far off China in terms of its resources, yet Indian shipbuilding and Chinese shipbuilding is like the ground and the sky, my point is, if they were to build fast, they would have done it by now, if they haven’t, they never will

Click to expand...

That's a pretty hard stance there asif. I would never say "never". They clearly have problems, and cannot be comared to the PLAN and Chinese shipbuilding right now...but we shall see with these Kolkatas and their commissioning whether they have improved.

I would not underestimate them though. The Delhis are not bad vessels in terms of their capabilities. The Kolkatas...if they infact commission them according to this schedule...will also be very capable vessels. Their new frigates look to be very capable as well for a FFG sized platform.

If 2016 rolls around and they only have one Kolkata commissioned, I will certainly concede that they apparently still have not learned how to logistically plan for the trials, outfitting and commissioning of their major combatants.

Re: Indian Kolkata Class DDG

tphuang said:

Well, I don't think we should compare Chinese shipbuilding to Indian shipbuilding. Chinese shipbuilding is clearly very efficient and managed quite well from all the sources I can read. You see the same successes in other major civilian shipbuilding countries like South Korea and Japan. Outside of these countries, you tend to see a lot of cost overruns and project delays. India is certainly a major offender here. But, there is no shame that they take much longer time to launch ships, if they don't have the same level of expertise or manufacturing power as China has. If China wants to be the best shipbuilding nation in the world, it shouldn't compare itself with India.

The question here was whether the carriers and escorts could be commissioned on time. I think it seems like their first indigenous carrier is suffering some real delays. It's already pushed back to 2017 and could be pushed further back. My guess is that Project 15A and 17A will suffer further delays, but how long that would be is a different questions. India has the resources and access to technology to have a good navy. We shouldn't put the same level of expectation on IN as we do with PLAN.

Click to expand...

Well I did say "Now I'm not saying the IN necessarily needs such an aggressive or effective build and commissioning rate" which was meant to convey that I don't expect such a efficient shipbuilding rate out of india.

But seven years from launch to comissioning is still abysmal, whether it's for a frigate or destroyer.

Re: JMSDF Akizuki Class DDG (19DD AEGIS-like)

Jeff Head said:

Sorry Bltizo, when you understand the design, and its purposes, it is in fact very well armed.

It will carry 24 Quad Packed ESSM (or maybe 16) for a total of 96 (or 64) very strong short to mid range AAW missiles and then back that up with two Phalanx 20mm CIWS. It will carry 8 (or 16) VL ASROC missiles, along with 6 tube launched 324mm torpedoes and a SH-60J ASW helo...so an extremely strong ASW load out, particularly with its ASW sensor suite. It carries a 127mm main gun and eight of the Japanese SSMs, which themselves are also very credible.

All of that is a very good balance of ASuW, ASW, and AAW warfare, particular in its escort role, and particularly when considered with the excellent sensor and electronics suite they carry. These vessels were never meant for land attack so any consideration to that is moot. For what they were designed for, they are very credible and very balanced and will perform extremely well.

How anyone can say that 96 (64) x AAW missiles, 2 x 20mm CIWS, 8 (16) x VL ASROC, 6 x 324mm Torpedoes, 1 x SH-60J Helicopter, 1 x 127mm DP gun, and 8 x SSMs is under armed...particularly when you couple the effectiveness of its sensor suite for those particular weapons, is beyond me.

Click to expand...

Well how well armed a ship is completely depends on how well armed its equivalents are.

Your aegis worldwide page is an excellent source to compare similar ships to akizuki.

Bazan and hobart are both in Akizuki's weight class, feature aegis, and are equipped with 48 Mk 41s. That is 16x4 extra ESSMs, or 16 tomahawks or SM-2s or even SM-3s on top of what Akizuki offer, despite having a similar max displacement.

Horizon, displacing 7000 tons as well, features 48 SYLVER VLS (they can't quad pack ESSM as of yet of course, but fact is there are 16 extra VLS).
Similar case of 052C, even if its VLS is restricted to HQ-9.
We don't have a legitimate estimate for 052D's displacement, but most people cite it as displacing no more than 7,500 tons. It features twice the number of VLS cells as akizuki, despite being only a few hundred tons heavier.

My point is that Akizuki is underarmed relative to ships of similar displacement in the world. One can argue that quad packing ESSM gives it additional combat capability, but so do other Mk41 equipped ships, and 052D's CCL VLS, so it is VLS count which is the important metric.
But simply having VLS cells isn't a determinant of the ship's overall combat capability. Akizuki can probably engage more targets at a time using ESSM than say, a destroyer equipped with traditional mechanical illuminators, thanks to its AESA. Also, having a larger hull with a smaller proportion of weapons means more space for crew and improving onboard facilities, perhaps improved automation, or computing and sensor power, all of which will add up to improve overall combat effectiveness indirectly.

Also, having such a large hull with a relatively small weapons load may equate to greater endurance, compared to a similar 7000 ton ship with 48 VLS cells.

But end of the day, 32 cells is not much for a 7000 ton ship. compared to its peers. Just like how 48 cells is rather measley for a 8000 ton DDG like Type 45.

Re: JMSDF Akizuki Class DDG (19DD AEGIS-like)

Bltizo said:

Well how well armed a ship is completely depends on how well armed its equivalents are.

Your aegis worldwide page is an excellent source to compare similar ships to akizuki.

Bazan and hobart are both in Akizuki's weight class, feature aegis, and are equipped with 48 Mk 41s. That is 16x4 extra ESSMs, or 16 tomahawks or SM-2s or even SM-3s on top of what Akizuki offer, despite having a similar max displacement.

Horizon, displacing 7000 tons as well, features 48 SYLVER VLS (they can't quad pack ESSM as of yet of course, but fact is there are 16 extra VLS).


My point is that Akizuki is underarmed relative to ships of similar displacement in the world.

One can argue that quad packing ESSM gives it additional combat capability, but so do other Mk41 equipped ships, and 052D's CCL VLS, so it is VLS count which is the important metric.

But simply having VLS cells isn't a determinant of the ship's overall combat capability. Akizuki can probably engage more targets at a time using ESSM than say, a destroyer equipped with traditional mechanical illuminators, thanks to its AESA. Also, having a larger hull with a smaller proportion of weapons means more space for crew and improving onboard facilities, perhaps improved automation, or computing and sensor power, all of which will add up to improve overall combat effectiveness indirectly.

Also, having such a large hull with a relatively small weapons load may equate to greater endurance, compared to a similar 7000 ton ship with 48 VLS cells.

But end of the day, 32 cells is not much for a 7000 ton ship. compared to its peers. Just like how 48 cells is rather measley for a 8000 ton DDG like Type 45.

Click to expand...

Blitzo, I know exactly what that AEGIS page shows, and it makes my point for me.

The Akizuki sensor suite is a dual band, Japanese version of AEGIS that can communicate through data link and perform CE.

In addition, the ships were not designed to be long range anti-air shooters, so comparing it to long range anti-air shooters and their VLS count is not a valid comparison. Comparing it to the capability of those vessels to perform the role intended for the Akizuki and how they will be deployed is the real key here.

In the closer ring, short to medium range circle, it will perform very well with AAW and be very well armed to do so with its quad packed ESSMs. Its sensors will be able to acquire and guide against incoming missiles in that area as well as any of its contemporaries, and better than many of them.

That is what it was designed for. Regardless of how many specific cells they have, in the end those cells house missiles and the missile count and the sensors driving them are what the end game is. In that regard, for that type of air defense they were designed for and for the ASW and ASuW roles, they are as well armed as the others, and may be more effective, and that effectiveness is also a big part of combat and their armament

You make a number of points (which I have just shared with you my counter) and then you counter most of your own points with the very types of arguments I am presenting. IMHO, that is critical. When you reflect on how these vessels are meant to be used, it becomes clear that they are a very decent design for that...and that has been my contention all along.

The Akizuki is a very good design for its role. I stand by that assessment. It will perform that role as well as about any other vessel can...even if other vessels were designed to fulfill other roles as well.

The Akizuki was designed to be in the company of JMSDF AEGIS vessels for the long shot AAW. Its own ample ASW will be augmented by other JMSDF vessels like the Hyuga, other Akizukis, Takinamis or Murisames.

Anyhow, all of this is more rehash of what has been discussed numerous times on this thread. People will have to make up their own mind...but I give a LOT of props to the JMSDF planners and designers. They are very capable and know exactly what they are about. Very, very good at what they do. And, IMHO, this design just further punctuates that.

Re: JMSDF Akizuki Class DDG (19DD AEGIS-like)

In the overall discussion about the Akizuki, I thought it would be good to also look at the prior class, the Takanami Class (6,300 tons), which was an imporved version of the Murasami Class, and compare the five Takanamis with the four ship Akizuki Class (7,000 tons).

What you find is that the Akizuki is in essense an improved Takanami where the main difference is the addition of the ATECS system with its dual band PAR capability. They also upgraded to using all four Rolls Royce SPEY-SM1C engines instead of a 2 LM 2500, 2 SPEY SM1C mix. There was also an upgrade to the fire control, sonar suite, and other sensors. This has enhanced the effectiveness of the weapons fit the Akizuki carriers (which is exacttly the same as the Takanami) so it can more effectively use those weapons to more capably fulfill its role, and particlualry the short-mid range AAW escort role for vessels like the AEGIS BMD vessels and the Izumo type carriers.

Here's a chart illustrating this:


Here's how the vessels visually compare...they are built on the same huill design:


So, another component of this equation regarding the Akizuki is that the JSMDF took advantage of, and improved, an existing design they already had significant experience with, and investment in. This improves the cost, maintenance, training, etc., and allows them to imporve on a design they have recognized as being a strong DDG for their purposes.

Re: JMSDF Akizuki Class DDG (19DD AEGIS-like)

Bltizo said:

...

But end of the day, 32 cells is not much for a 7000 ton ship. compared to its peers. Just like how 48 cells is rather measley for a 8000 ton DDG like Type 45.

Click to expand...

From what I've read, the Japanese strategy would be to use 19DDs together with Atagos (96 cells) / Kongos (89 cells, yeah, strange number / Hyugas (16 cells) etc. and I hope they all could shoot targets illuminated by the 19DD's FCS-3 radar!