AEGIS and AEGIS Like escort combatants of the World

Fair enough -- although for future comparisons/assessments in other threads, I will likely describe various ships using an aegis frigate/destroyer/cruiser stratification.

My humble opinion, for future reference if discussions pop up in other threads, of course I acknowledge there will be disagreement:

Aegis type frigates:
-ANZACs upgraded with CEAFAR
-FREMM
-Formidable
-054A
-Sa'ar 5 upgraded with MF STAR
-(Type 23s upgraded with Artisan radar and CAMM)
-(Type 26 GCS)


Aegis type destroyers:
-Burke I and II
-Type 45/Daring
-Horizon (Forbin and Andrea Doria)
-Saschen
-Nansen
-De Bazan
-(Hobart)
-De Zeven Provincien
-Iver Huitfeldt
-052C
-O52D
-Kongo
-Akizuki
-Kolkata
-(KDX-IIA)


Aegis type cruisers:
-Burke IIA
-Ticonderoga
-Atago
-Sejong
-(Zumwalt)
-(055)

[Another category worth mentioning are what I like to call Aegis type support ships -- ships with very advanced radars, command/control systems, but minimal anti air armament. At the moment imho this only includes the F125 class, but the argument exists for Absalon as well given SMART-S is quite a capable radar.]

Bltizo said:

Fair enough -- although for future comparisons/assessments in other threads, I will likely describe various ships using an aegis frigate/destroyer/cruiser stratification.

My humble opinion, for future reference if discussions pop up in other threads, of course I acknowledge there will be disagreement:

Aegis type frigates:
-ANZACs upgraded with CEAFAR
-FREMM
-Formidable
-054A
-Sa'ar 5 upgraded with MF STAR
-(Type 23s upgraded with Artisan radar and CAMM)
-(Type 26 GCS)


Aegis type destroyers:
-Burke I and II
-Type 45/Daring
-Horizon (Forbin and Andrea Doria)
-Saschen
-Nansen
-De Bazan
-(Hobart)
-De Zeven Provincien
-Iver Huitfeldt
-052C
-O52D
-Kongo
-Akizuki
-Kolkata
-(KDX-IIA)


Aegis type cruisers:
-Burke IIA
-Ticonderoga
-Atago
-Sejong
-(Zumwalt)
-(055)

[Another category worth mentioning are what I like to call Aegis type support ships -- ships with very advanced radars, command/control systems, but minimal anti air armament. At the moment imho this only includes the F125 class, but the argument exists for Absalon as well given SMART-S is quite a capable radar.]

Click to expand...

I think directionally you are going off tangent and adding confusion to the concept of AEGIS which is essentially a battlefield management system rather some hardware in the form of radar or VLS. As I understand it, AEGIS is a battlefield management system with the capability to track thousands of aerial objects within its sensor range and the capability to simultaneously identify threats, prioritise them, engage "x" number if necessary and to neutralise them in an autonomous manner even if it is subject to saturation. The radar is the eye, the VLS its spear and the battle management system the brain that provides such capability. How well it performs is probably classified and not a lot known publicly. However its capability has probably evolved over time and the standard in which other similar systems are aspiring as an objective. The ability to provide area air defence as opposed to ship air defence sets it apart from other systems. For example, Zumwalt as I understand it, cannot provide area air defence even though it might have ship air defence capability and in my view is not AEGIS or have AEGIS like capability.

The problem is as you migrate the concept to other platforms and systems and given that many are classified or its capabilities not publicly known, the classification become rather arbitrary and subjective and compounded by systems of which their capabilities are rather obscure especially with the Chinese systems like on the type 054 vessel. It may have decent ship air defence but area air defence is a different threshold and even within that threshold is highly subjective across systems. You potentially get into conversation of whether it is AEGIS like or AEGIS lite or comprehensive area air defence as opposed to limited area air defence capabilities. That becomes a slippery slope.

Brumby said:

I think directionally you are going off tangent and adding confusion to the concept of AEGIS which is essentially a battlefield management system rather some hardware in the form of radar or VLS. As I understand it, AEGIS is a battlefield management system with the capability to track thousands of aerial objects within its sensor range and the capability to simultaneously identify threats, prioritise them, engage "x" number if necessary and to neutralise them in an autonomous manner even if it is subject to saturation. The radar is the eye, the VLS its spear and the battle management system the brain that provides such capability. How well it performs is probably classified and not a lot known publicly. However its capability has probably evolved over time and the standard in which other similar systems are aspiring as an objective. The ability to provide area air defence as opposed to ship air defence sets it apart from other systems. For example, Zumwalt as I understand it, cannot provide area air defence even though it might have ship air defence capability and in my view is not AEGIS or have AEGIS like capability.

The problem is as you migrate the concept to other platforms and systems and given that many are classified or its capabilities not publicly known, the classification become rather arbitrary and subjective and compounded by systems of which their capabilities are rather obscure especially with the Chinese systems like on the type 054 vessel. It may have decent ship air defence but area air defence is a different threshold and even within that threshold is highly subjective across systems. You potentially get into conversation of whether it is AEGIS like or AEGIS lite or comprehensive area air defence as opposed to limited area air defence capabilities. That becomes a slippery slope.

Click to expand...

Well, there is a difference between AEGIS (which is the battle management system of lockheed martin) and what was initially described as an "Aegis type" surface combatant (a vessel which includes VLS, advanced PAR, battle management system, multirole capabilities, among other featuers).

It is the latter of which I have been referring to, and I described it in a post a few pages back
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/wor...cort-combatants-world-21-6143.html#post315604

---

It is good that you bring up Zumwalt as well, because even though it doesn't use the AEGIS (TM) battle management system, i think it definitely has all the qualifiers for an Aegis type surface combatant that I've listed.

I can appreciate the slippery slope you describe, and I suppose that is the point I am getting at -- it may be worth expanding the definition. Limiting Aegis-ness only to BMS or air defence reach is difficult. Where do we set the hard limit? Does the maximum range of the primary SAM have a factor to play? (is it 25km, 40km, 50km, 70km, 120km?)
If you propose the ability to provide defence for other ships as a factor, then missile range comes into play.

So I think it is more useful to describe ships in terms of their holistic components rather than only assessing their battle management, and using a displacement based criteria may be the way to go about it (as usually, higher displacement means more powerful radar, more processing, more armament), and we can put the ships on a continuous scale.

By acknowledging ships as "Aegis type" followed by a displacement and/or type of vessel, I think we can get a more accurate understanding of each ship's own capability.

I of course do understand that Aegis-ness should include networking and CeC between different vessels, but I do not think we have sufficient information to place any kind of limit regarding when a ship does begin to have CeC capabilities (especially for all the surface combatants in the world).



The reason I emphasize the need to consider Aegis type vessels for varying displacements, is because ignoring them and only assessing the top tier Aegis type vessels may provide a misleading picture regarding the overall capability of a navy, especially if they have a meaningful number of smaller, slightly lower capability Aegis Frigates vs Destroyers.

For instance, with the six Formidables of the RSN, they will have as much or greater air defence capability than the three Kolkatas of the IN (once commissioned) -- but under the current definition they are not considered Aegis type vessels, and I think that is very misleading.
(Formidables carry Aster missiles and Herkales radar. The former Aster 30 has much longer range than Barak 8 and Herkales radar has a similar range to MF STAR. And all of them are very modern systems as well)

Which was why I mentioned what I mentioned a few posts ago ( too lazy to search for it). This discussion about AEGIS or NON Aegis or aegis like etc will just adds more confusion than not. The term AEGIS like vessels is highly open to interpretation even among naval enthusiasts. As far as I'm concern you have AEGIS ships like the Burkes , ticos, the few Japanese, European and Korean destroyers etc and then you have other ships with AESA or PESA arrays with similar battle management system or air warfare system.

Aegis is not some magic technological wonder. It's just a 'branding' that originated form the Advanced Surface Missile System (ASMS) back in the 60's for anti ship defense and over the years has evolutionized into the system we see and know today. As a matter a fact technical manuals from LM naval systems very rarely mention the terms 'aegis' because it's not a real technical definition.

My 2c.

bengalraider of indian defence forum took these pictures

In visit i presume

FORBIN said:

In visit i presume

Click to expand...

the number of Barak 8 SAM's on Kolkata comfirmed ,32

PTI
INS Kolkata heading to the Kochi Harbour after practice during the Navy Week.

Click to expand...

Stealth destroyer INS Kolkata, the largest warship built in India, will fire a long-range surface-to-air missile (LR-SAM) for the first time in 2015.

“The vertical launch units of the LR-SAM, also called Barak 8, have been built into the vessel and the MF-STAR [multifunction surveillance and threat alert radar] is in place for missile guidance. All you need to do is take delivery of the missile, load it and fire. It is slated to take place next year,” Captain Tarun Sobti, Commanding Officer of INS Kolkata, told The Hindu during an exclusive tour of the ship.

The ship, commissioned in August in Mumbai, has just finished its maiden work-up here, during which the vessel and its crew were put through their paces by the Flag Officer Sea Training. The ship will carry 32 SAMs, with an enhanced range of up to 70 km, for missile defence.

The first flight of the LR-SAM, jointly developed by the Israeli Aerospace Industry and the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), took place in Israel in November.

An operational firing of the vertical BrahMos supersonic cruise missile, against surface targets, would be carried out early next year, Capt. Sobti said. The vessel fired BrahMos during the sea-acceptance trials off Karwar in June.

He said the vessel had an indigenous content of about 70 per cent. The work-up laid emphasis on, and perfected, the standard operating procedures, safety routines and tactical skills. “It’s a special training where procedures are perfected, the crew put together and safety drills performed to a fault,” he said.

The vessel, sporting a stealth design and displacing 7,500 tonnes, demonstrated strength, manoeuvrability and survivability and provided crew comfort. robust anti-submarine warfare capability was achieved with depth chargers, heavy-weight torpedoes, rockets and a bow-mounted sonar, the HUMSA-NG, developed by the Naval Physical and Oceanographic Laboratory, a DRDO lab.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

aksha said:

bengalraider of indian defence forum took these pictures

Click to expand...

GREAT pics!

Tell bengalraider that I zoomed in on and enhanced his photos, and the one other, to add to my Flickr Kolkata album.

Here they are:

two days ago on his Facebook profile, navyreco speculated Saudi Arabia might get the Burke-class:
(I hoped he'd post it to the SDF himself)

I don't think because the 4 Madina have her service life extended and not certain SA Navy get enouhg of crews, SA AF have Pakistanis mercenaries for help, Qatar and others in this region have also.

Old "announcement" for me...