AEGIS and AEGIS Like escort combatants of the World

The JMSDF Atagos are marvelous AEGIS vessels (and now the JMSDF is going to build two more of them):





...here's an Atago (foreground) sailing with a Kongo (behind and forward). The Atago has a helicopter hanger.



...and comparing the Atago class to the Burke Flight IIA, there's my models of each:

Atago Class:



Burke Flight IIA Class:

HMAS Hobart, DDGH-39 is looking very good:

Danish Iver Huitfeldt class frigates, potent combattants and in more very cheap as Absalon class.

They (the Absalons & Iver Huitfeldts) follow a great design philosophy and I really like their idea of a modular mission system for the vessels. Those StanFlex modules seems to really work properly. They are not made for rushing the vessel from one role into the next. Reconfiguring takes about a day plus. But that is still easily enough to give the vessel plenty of flexibility.

I just wish our F125s would have been built following that route. So that besides being able to carry light troops, storm boats, command facilities, fullfilling general anti-piracy / sea controll duties, they could also be properly armed if need be with ESSM and RBS15 Mk IV.

Yes,

Scratch said:

I just wish our F125s would have been built following that route. So that besides being able to carry light troops, storm boats, command facilities, fulfilling general anti-piracy / sea control duties, they could also be properly armed if need be with ESSM and RBS15 Mk IV.

Click to expand...

You would have thought a 16 cell VLS, heck even an 8 cell VLS with ESSMs would have been planned for these ships.

Now, they will have 42 RAM missiles ready...but those are short range CIWS and you would have though that even 32 ESSMs (with an 8 cell VLS) would have been accommodated.

Puzzling.

Jeff Head said:

Yes,

You would have thought a 16 cell VLS, heck even an 8 cell VLS with ESSMs would have been planned for these ships.

Now, they will have 42 RAM missiles ready...but those are short range CIWS and you would have though that even 32 ESSMs (with an 8 cell VLS) would have been accommodated.

Puzzling.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. I specificly remember reading that those vessels have two islands / masts to achieve redundancy of important systems / spaces in case of combat losses.
If one exspects a threat environment for the vessel to make these design choices, I would guess proper contigencies for active defenses, i.e. point air defence, would be incorporated.

The ships are easily large & important enough to carry a short length Mk41. At over 7.000t they are proper destroyers. And a Sachsen in the vicinity would provide a great AAW umbrella.

Correcting myself a little here, 8x Harpoon, to be later replaced with RBS15 MkIV missiles will be carried by the ships anyhow.

Correcting myself a little here, 8x Harpoon, to be later replaced with RBS15 MkIV

Click to expand...

Yes Harpoon is a interim solution waiting IOC for RBS15 MkIV.
Almost sure Harpoon from Type 122 retired.

About RBS15 MkIV better a much big rang as Mk III 400 km vs 250 ! dual, anti-ships and LACM as Mk III or MM-40 Bl III also but these missiles are not also powerful as a Tomahawk 450 kg which is a true LACM more capable vs some targets more big, buried and also consumes ammunition normaly anti-ships in first and more expensives in general.

I think the RBS-15 warhead is a 200kg class, still a usefull load. The missile, besides GPS, will likely also recieve a dual mode seeker (radar + IR) in it's Mk. IV incarnation, I believe.
Eight of those missiles is still a pretty good punch.

Burke variants comparison

dumb question: what are
"3 cell's for a crane"
at

FORBIN said:

View attachment 25108

Click to expand...

?