AEGIS and AEGIS Like escort combatants of the World

SouthernSky

Junior Member
What do you mean in particular, SouthernSky? (I'm sorry I didn't follow the building of Hobart so please give some link(s), could be a video with an Australian accent heheh)

And deny you the opportunity to spend and hour or so of your time researching the build of the Hobart class. Now that wouldn't be very sporting of me would it? ;)

Hobart will be two years behind schedule once launched. But given she is being built across three different shipyards with Spainish designers to boot I guess some allowance had to be made. Australia has also tailored the design to meet it's own needs which may have contributed. Two years is a bit of a stretch though.
 
Last edited:

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General
Spain did well they got the Aussie contract for LHD and Turkish LHD programme

Horbat Class also is from Spanish design

France also doing well with Russia buying Mistral Class I believe more nations will follow

France is doing extremely well since Brazil is pushing for all DCNS technology for SSK and SSN designs and not to mention the carrier designs

In that regard UK defence export designs have failed on big ticket items
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Via navyreco's excellent site

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Raytheon_AMDR_DDG_51_Burke_Flight_III_Sea-air-space_2014_news_2.jpg


Raytheon_AMDR_DDG_51_Burke_Flight_III_Sea-air-space_2014_news_1.JPG



If this really is what Flight III burke will look like, it seems like it won't be a big change from the Flight IIAs in weapons load or overall dimensions... The new S band radar and eventual new X band radar will obviously offer strongly improved capabilities, but overall it seems like business as usual, not even an integrated mast...

But hey, Jeff, at least these are some photos you can use for the eventual "flight iii burke" page on your aegis ships of the world site!
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
If this really is what Flight III burke will look like, it seems like it won't be a big change from the Flight IIAs in weapons load or overall dimensions... The new S band radar and eventual new X band radar will obviously offer strongly improved capabilities, but overall it seems like business as usual, not even an integrated mast...

But hey, Jeff, at least these are some photos you can use for the eventual "flight iii burke" page on your aegis ships of the world site!
Hmmm...the model I saw had a higher superstructure. Like this:


bilde


But even then, they are simply revising the vessel to account for the added weight of the new radar and not doing much more.

A disappointment in my mind. I would have liked to see them put that same radar on the KDX-III sized configuration with 128 VKLS cells so they truly serve as a complete replacement for the Ticonderoga cruisers they will replace.

I expect the Flight III vessels will also be candidates for the rail guns.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Jeff, I think the picture you posted had the AESA X band radars on the higher superstructure, whereas the model shown at the defence show was of the initial batch of flight iii burkes which only feature the S band AESA component of AMDR while the X band component uses the SPQ-9B as a gap filler.


And personally I doubt if the flight iii burkes will be able to accommodate a rail gun, especially if they want retain present missile load and the flight iii's radars. Not enough space, not enough power IMHO. But I think flight iii burke gives the USN some time to recapitalise their fleet as a gap filler while they work on a true next gen surface combatant for production post 2020, to build a ship is larger and can affordably and practically field some of DDG-1000s technologies (which would be mature by then), including addition of a possible first generation operational rail gun.
 

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
I do expect to see a proper x band radar with several arrays on flight III, as the half-assed solution as depicted on image blitzo posted is just... horrible. Maybe it's the technology insertion series of burkes? And proper flight III will have a decent X band arrays on a mast?

I think image jeff posted may not be very exact either as the terminal illuminator dishes are still there, in addition to fixed x band arrays. That's just superfluous. One'd expect the dishes to be gone once the fixed arrays are in place.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I do expect to see a proper x band radar with several arrays on flight III, as the half-assed solution as depicted on image blitzo posted is just... horrible. Maybe it's the technology insertion series of burkes? And proper flight III will have a decent X band arrays on a mast?

I think image jeff posted may not be very exact either as the terminal illuminator dishes are still there, in addition to fixed x band arrays. That's just superfluous. One'd expect the dishes to be gone once the fixed arrays are in place.

Yes, the plan is for the initial flight iii ships to feature SPQ-9B as the X band horizon search radar component. Later ships will have a real fixed X band AESA. I think defence industry daily has a good article on the AMDR program for the flight iii burkes.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The AMDR-X radar will provide horizon search, precision tracing, missile communications, and final illumination guidance to targets. It will be available in AMDR sets 13 onward; the first 12 ship sets will use Northrop Grumman’s in-service SPQ-9B radar instead.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
The Final package for Burke Block 3 has yet to be set so Expect Changes to continue for all we know neither model is accurate. we really won't have a clue as to the true form of Block III until DDG 123 the last of the Block IIA and DDG 124 the first of the Block III.

Bltizo said:
Jeff, I think the picture you posted had the AESA X band radars on the higher superstructure, whereas the model shown at the defence show was of the initial batch of flight iii burkes which only feature the S band AESA component of AMDR while the X band component uses the SPQ-9B as a gap filler.


And personally I doubt if the flight iii burkes will be able to accommodate a rail gun, especially if they want retain present missile load and the flight iii's radars. Not enough space, not enough power IMHO. But I think flight iii burke gives the USN some time to recapitalise their fleet as a gap filler while they work on a true next gen surface combatant for production post 2020, to build a ship is larger and can affordably and practically field some of DDG-1000s technologies (which would be mature by then), including addition of a possible first generation operational rail gun.
Blitz you need a 900 number on your phone man, Cause You must be Psychic

Navy Makes Plans for New Destroyer for 2030s

Military.comApr 09, 2014 | by Kris Osborn
The U.S. Navy is in the very early stages of developing a new destroyer -- called the Future Surface Combatant -- which will replace the existing Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and enter service by the early 2030s, Navy leaders told Military.com.
Navy officials said it is much too early to speculate on hull design or shape for the new ship but lasers, on-board power-generation systems, increased automation, next-generation weapons, sensors and electronics are all expected to figure prominently in the development of the vessel.
The Future Surface Combatant will succeed and serve alongside the Navy's current Flight III DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer program slated to being construction in 2016. Overall, the Secretary of the Navy's long-range shipbuilding plan calls for construction of 22 Flight III DDGs, Navy officials said.
There are a handful of early emerging requirements regarding what admirals want for the ship, Rear Adm. Tom Rowden, director of surface warfare, told Military.com in an interview.
"I could not even draw a picture for you," said Rowden, who went on to explain that greater automation and integrated electrical power are part of the calculus of early discussions.

He emphasized that the new ship will leverage successful next-generation technologies already underway in other platforms such as the DDG 1000 destroyer, Littoral Combat Ship and Ford-class aircraft carriers.
The Future Surface Combatant may draw from the DDG 1000's high-tech electric drive system that propels the ship while generating 58 megawatts of on-board electrical power. On-board power will be in high demand as lasers and directed energy weapons become more prominent, Rowden said.
"We are moving all ahead with respect to the development of lasers as a weapon in the future. You can take the power that is generated on the ship and convert that into a fire control solution without having to shoot a missile that may cost a million to ten million," Rowden explained.
In fact, low-cost laser weapons are a way to help stay ahead of the cost curve on future destroyers, he added.
"One of the things I am concerned about is if our enemy can develop a million dollar missile but we have to shoot ten million dollars worth of missiles in order to ensure that they don't inflict damage on our ship – we're on the wrong side of the cost curve," he said.
Navy leaders will emphasize lethality and survivability as initial requirements are developed for the new destroyer. Rowden explained that the new destroyer will, among other things, be tasked with protecting America's aircraft carriers.
The largest aspect of emphasis for the nascent Future Surface Combatant program is something Rowden called modularity, a term referring to a technological ability to rapidly and effectively make adjustments as needed.
The new ship design will emphasize flexibility to ensure the platform keeps pace with fast-moving technological change and threats, he said.
"You have to understand that in order to maintain the relevance of the combat system, you have to have a combat system that can evolve with the threat. If you integrate the ship so tightly that you have to take the ship apart in order to integrate the combat system -- then that adds significant cost to maintaining the relevance of the ship," Rowden said.
This approach is designed to ensure the platform keeps pace with emerging innovations in weaponry, electronics, computing and sensors.
"The modules that we install in the ship may have no bearing or resemblance to what needs to be there when we decommission the ship. The weapons and sensors will be different. We have to think about how to move through the design, manufacture and subsequent upgrades in the most cost-effective and affordable fashion. We need to design that into the ship," he said.
-- Kris Osborn can be reached at [email protected]
Military.com
 

kwaigonegin

Colonel
The Final package for Burke Block 3 has yet to be set so Expect Changes to continue for all we know neither model is accurate. we really won't have a clue as to the true form of Block III until DDG 123 the last of the Block IIA and DDG 124 the first of the Block III.


Blitz you need a 900 number on your phone man, Cause You must be Psychic


Military.com

I think the only think we can say for sure is the hull will be the same and most of the superstructure on the back half of the vessel. Everything else is probably speculative.
 
Top