It's always fun trying to twist one's mind around just what "aegis-like" means.
Under some definitions, a ship is aegis-like if it has an advanced PAR and capable missile firepower.
Of course, what defines an "advanced PAR" is one question, and what "capable missile firepower" is also another -- for instance, is it radar type or effective range/size which is important. For instance, which out of the following are "aegis" radars, and why: thales APAR, SPY-1, SAMPSON, herkales, sea eagle, type 348 APAR?
For missiles, is it having VLS, a large number of VLS, or simply the ability to throw out lots of missiles (in which case, woudl the first ticonderoga ships with arm launchers be classified as "aegis"?)
Then there are more complicated definitions, whereby "aegis" is defined by the unification of a variety of sensors and weapon systems into a single combat system -- but all warships strive to that goal, and naturally, all achieve it to varying degrees. It would be interesting to compare a modern day FREMM with an early aegis ticonderoga and compare which has the more "unified" combat system.
A more "fleet centric" approach to aegis definition may include a variety of other off ship sensors, and refers to the ability of ships to datalink effectively with each other and other assets, in which case the term refers less to the capability of a single ship but rather the collective fighting capability. But that leads to the logical fallacy that a single burke operating alone wouldn't be considered an "aegis" ship.
Ultimately, I think all modern surface combatants are "aegis" to a degree -- after all, it is merely a marketing slogan -- but whether we choose to see it as such depends on our own personal biases.
An example: the singaporean formidable class would by all accounts be considered a decent aegis ship. 32 VLS cells, advanced phased array radar in the herkales, a european combat system. However it isn't "aegis". Part of this, is probably because the herkales is a rotating PAR, and that the SLYVER VLS is thus far only limited to Aster missiles.
Thus it begs the question, if the formidable class were equipped instead with SPY-1F and Mk-41s, would we consider it "aegis"? Furthermore, a mechanically scanning PAR isn't necessarily an impotent design either, because the SAMPSON of type 45 and EMPAR of the horizon classes are both mechanically scanning PARs and endow both ship classes into the general "league" of aegis-ness.
Under some definitions, a ship is aegis-like if it has an advanced PAR and capable missile firepower.
Of course, what defines an "advanced PAR" is one question, and what "capable missile firepower" is also another -- for instance, is it radar type or effective range/size which is important. For instance, which out of the following are "aegis" radars, and why: thales APAR, SPY-1, SAMPSON, herkales, sea eagle, type 348 APAR?
For missiles, is it having VLS, a large number of VLS, or simply the ability to throw out lots of missiles (in which case, woudl the first ticonderoga ships with arm launchers be classified as "aegis"?)
Then there are more complicated definitions, whereby "aegis" is defined by the unification of a variety of sensors and weapon systems into a single combat system -- but all warships strive to that goal, and naturally, all achieve it to varying degrees. It would be interesting to compare a modern day FREMM with an early aegis ticonderoga and compare which has the more "unified" combat system.
A more "fleet centric" approach to aegis definition may include a variety of other off ship sensors, and refers to the ability of ships to datalink effectively with each other and other assets, in which case the term refers less to the capability of a single ship but rather the collective fighting capability. But that leads to the logical fallacy that a single burke operating alone wouldn't be considered an "aegis" ship.
Ultimately, I think all modern surface combatants are "aegis" to a degree -- after all, it is merely a marketing slogan -- but whether we choose to see it as such depends on our own personal biases.
An example: the singaporean formidable class would by all accounts be considered a decent aegis ship. 32 VLS cells, advanced phased array radar in the herkales, a european combat system. However it isn't "aegis". Part of this, is probably because the herkales is a rotating PAR, and that the SLYVER VLS is thus far only limited to Aster missiles.
Thus it begs the question, if the formidable class were equipped instead with SPY-1F and Mk-41s, would we consider it "aegis"? Furthermore, a mechanically scanning PAR isn't necessarily an impotent design either, because the SAMPSON of type 45 and EMPAR of the horizon classes are both mechanically scanning PARs and endow both ship classes into the general "league" of aegis-ness.
for the layman yes sometimes you have to take it down to the lowest common denomintor.