AEGIS and AEGIS Like escort combatants of the World

FORBIN said:

Other right now planned 5 replace 6 Perry/Santa María for sure VLS with 16 silos i think this graphic is more recent
View attachment 40501

Click to expand...

No doubt they will be good ships...but they are replacing six with five, and the six will only have 16 VLS cells? 1/4 the amount per ship?

I imply do not understnd their thinking.

The threats are increasing, and they need to maintain those VLS cels to have a prayer of stopping those new threats, particularly in saruration attacks against high value vessels like the Juan Calos.

64 ESSMs via 16 VLS is noce...but not nearly enough.

with 48 they could have 128 ESSMs + 24 SMs + 8 ASMs.

Jeff Head said:

No doubt they will be good ships...but they are replacing six with five, and the six will only have 16 VLS cells? 1/4 the amount per ship?

I imply do not understnd their thinking.

The threats are increasing, and they need to maintain those VLS cels to have a prayer of stopping those new threats, particularly in saruration attacks against high value vessels like the Juan Calos.

64 ESSMs via 16 VLS is noce...but not nearly enough.

with 48 they could have 128 ESSMs + 24 SMs + 8 ASMs.

Click to expand...

As I said, Spanish politicians are a useless bunch of retards.

Spain has a huge line of coast, in both the Mediterranian Sea and the Atlantic Ocean, plus the Canary islands, that for a long time have been desired by Morocco.

The Spanish MoD spends a 0,8% GDP in defense...

What can I say???

One point more for you Jeff.... The Juan Carlos I PHD doesn't have any Point defense System, just provisions for a Nixie and a couple .50 machine guns. That's it

The Spanish government doesn't want to spend in defense because the Left Wing parties have the moral superiority in this country.
The message is this

Army= Franco (who was a general) = Fascist, Nazi = Right Wing Party

Conclusion??? Methodic process for dismantling the Armed Forces....

Me I would have been happy with six F-310 Nansen Class for the Spanish Armada..... We would have built there in Ferrol, we would alredy have them and they would be reasonably armed...

But.... it is not me who decides..


PS: Sorry for meddling in politics more than is reasonable in this post. I hope I haven't offended anyone

mankyle said:

As I said, Spanish politicians are a useless bunch of retards.

Spain has a huge line of coast, in both the Mediterranian Sea and the Atlantic Ocean, plus the Canary islands, that for a long time have been desired by Morocco.

The Spanish MoD spends a 0,8% GDP in defense...

What can I say???

One point more for you Jeff.... The Juan Carlos I PHD doesn't have any Point defense System, just provisions for a Nixie and a couple .50 machine guns. That's it

The Spanish government doesn't want to spend in defense because the Left Wing parties have the moral superiority in this country.
The message is this

Army= Franco (who was a general) = Fascist, Nazi = Right Wing Party

Conclusion??? Methodic process for dismantling the Armed Forces....

Me I would have been happy with six F-310 Nansen Class for the Spanish Armada..... We would have built there in Ferrol, we would alredy have them and they would be reasonably armed...

But.... it is not me who decides..


PS: Sorry for meddling in politics more than is reasonable in this post. I hope I haven't offended anyone

Click to expand...

We see similar trends and tendencies in most Western Nations.

It is sad.

I thought the Juan Carlo had 4x20mm guns and a small VLS (8-cell)? You say it has nothing but probably some .50 cal mounts?

Jeff Head said:

We see similar trends and tendencies in most Western Nations.

It is sad.

I thought the Juan Carlo had 4x20mm guns and a small VLS (8-cell)? You say it has nothing but probably some .50 cal mounts?

Click to expand...

There were plans to add 4 20 mm guns and maybe 1 or 2 RAM launchers.

No money for that

Now I think it has 4 .50 HMGs and 2 7.62 mm MGs mounted in the railings.

No 20 mm cannons and no missiles

I can confirm it. I visited the ship in a neighbour city a couple months ago

mankyle said:

There were plans to add 4 20 mm guns and maybe 1 or 2 RAM launchers.

No money for that

Now I think it has 4 .50 HMGs and 2 7.62 mm MGs mounted in the railings.

No 20 mm cannons and no missiles

I can confirm it. I visited the ship in a neighbour city a couple months ago

Click to expand...

Thank you.

That is not only disheartening...it is dangerous for Spain naval personnel.

I find it hard to understand why they would not provide their flagship with even rudimentary self defense.

I suppose (hope) that they are always accompanied by at least one or two F-100 FFGs.

It's just craziness to me.

Iron Man please

Iron Man said:

Umm, you know that SPY-6 is already GaN, do you not? I'm saying that given the total power generation capacity of the Flight III Burke, it is entirely unrealistic for each panel to consume more than 1.5MW of power as an upper bound, and IMO it is likely less than that. So the question remains, if a SPY-6-sized GaN panel consumes less than 1.5MW, what panel on the 055 is going to consume 4MW of power, whether or not it is used for EA?

Click to expand...

And how many modules by SPY-6 ? i have 4350 for SPY-1 and what range can we estimated i have for SPY-1 D/D(V) 305 - 325 km/0.0025 m2 or 585 km or +/1 m2

FORBIN said:

Iron Man please



And how many modules by SPY-6 ? i have 4350 for SPY-1 and what range can we estimated i have for SPY-1 D/D(V) 305 - 325 km/0.0025 m2 or 585 km or +/1 m2

Click to expand...

The SPY-1D panel size is 12' x 12' while the SPY-6 panel size is 14' x 14'. Each SPY-6 panel houses 5,328 GaN T/R modules divided into a new architecture system called RMA (radar module assembly) which is a 2' x 2' x 2' individual unit of a totally scalable radar system. The SPY-6 has 37 RMAs (144 T/R modules/RMA) assembled in a roughly octagonal arrangement. As for the range, the quote is "SPY-6 can see a target of half the size at twice the distance" of SPY-1.

Here is Raytheon's site for SPY-6 with a nice little video:


Here is Navsea's specs on the SPY-6:

Iron Man said:

The SPY-1D panel size is 12' x 12' while the SPY-6 panel size is 14' x 14'. Each SPY-6 panel houses 5,328 GaN T/R modules divided into a new architecture system called RMA (radar module assembly) which is a 2' x 2' x 2' individual unit of a totally scalable radar system. The SPY-6 has 37 RMAs (144 T/R modules/RMA) assembled in a roughly octagonal arrangement. As for the range, the quote is "SPY-6 can see a target of half the size at twice the distance" of SPY-1.

Here is Raytheon's site for SPY-6 with a nice little video:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Here is Navsea's specs on the SPY-6:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Thank you !

Jeff Head
I find interesting reports about reloading for these type of combattants especialy Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke

MK41

CNO Announces the Return of Vertical Launch System At-Sea Reloading
26.htmlhttp://nationalinterest.org/feature/exclusive-cno-announces-the-return-vertical-launch-system-21425

MK41
The MK41 vertical launch system was conceived in 1976 and first appeared on the cruiser USS Bunker Hill. The vertical launch system, conceived by FMC but produced by Martin-Marietta (now part of Lockheed Martin), was a major upgrade from the MK26 launcher, which employed a twin-arm ramp with an under-deck ammunition depot for 44 missiles. The same space occupied by a MK26 launcher, thanks to the MK41, became a 61-missiles silo, with all missiles constantly ready to be fired, against only 2 ready to fire on the arms of the MK26 ramp

The MK41 comes in

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

which have 8 missile cells each, arranged in two rows of four aligned on the two sides of a vertical uptake used for venting hot gas. Originally, there was also a module with just 5 missile cells, with the space of the other three occupied by a fold-down crane for at sea reloading, as we’ll see.

Ticonderoga-class cruisers and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers
Early Ticonderoga-class cruisers and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers once had VLS strikedown cranes that were rated to lift medium-range SM-2 surface-to-air missiles and ASROC antisubmarine rocket-boosted torpedoes, but were incapable of lifting larger loads of the size of Tomahawk cruise missiles and the.

The fold-down crane for at-sea reloading of missile cells was contained under deck in a space equivalent to just 3 missile cells, and elevated outwards during reload operations. The requirement was for the replenishment of 10 VLS cells per hour, even in Sea State 5, with the missile canisters being transferred via RAS (UNREP for the Americans) rigs.
Reloading of missile canisters at sea, however, proved always difficult at best, and the ingenious crane, albeit fascinating, was never capable to deal with the larger and heavier canisters, such as the MK14 containing the Tomahawk. The failure of the VLS replenishment at sea is summarized as follows:

The original development of the MK 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) for cruisers and destroyers in the late 1970’s included a requirement to replenish ten VLS canisters per hour, day or night in Sea State 5 conditions. The system actually installed consisted of the STREAM rig to transfer the VLS canister to the missile ship sliding padeye; then deck handling the canister to a position where a crane could tilt up the canister over an empty cell and then strike the canister down. The crane was a commercial Swedish folding crane. Three canister cells were combined to make stowage for the crane. An elevator raised or lowered the crane. The at sea VLS Unrep technical evaluation discussed in Miller (1992) identified that the crane did not have the capacity to lift Tomahawk VLS canisters; SM-2 VLS transfer rate was three per hour and the pendulum action of the crane limited Unrep to Sea State 3 conditions. The cranes are now in layup.

FORBIN said:

Jeff Head
I find interesting reports about reloading for these type of combattants especialy Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke

The original development of the MK 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) for cruisers and destroyers in the late 1970’s included a requirement to replenish ten VLS canisters per hour, day or night in Sea State 5 conditions. The system actually installed consisted of the STREAM rig to transfer the VLS canister to the missile ship sliding padeye; then deck handling the canister to a position where a crane could tilt up the canister over an empty cell and then strike the canister down. The crane was a commercial Swedish folding crane. Three canister cells were combined to make stowage for the crane. An elevator raised or lowered the crane. The at sea VLS Unrep technical evaluation discussed in Miller (1992) identified that the crane did not have the capacity to lift Tomahawk VLS canisters; SM-2 VLS transfer rate was three per hour and the pendulum action of the crane limited Unrep to Sea State 3 conditions. The cranes are now in layup.

Click to expand...

The requirement was NEVER met. They never did ten per hour. The best they could do was 3 per hour, and they had to have less than a 3 state sea.

That's why they did away with it and added more missiles.

I personally believe that the US Navy is capable of and should build a CG replacement for the Ticos with 128 cells.

HEck, I believe they could build a little larger AB with 128 cells.

We know they can...South Korea has them!

With 128 cells, and with the quad pack, the Tomohawk and LRASM capabilities, plus the VL ASROC, 128 cells can give you and unbelievable capability of a very versatile and customizable load out.

We should be taking advantage of it.

For example:

16 x ASM (Tomohawk or LRASM) Anti-ship missiles
16 a VL-ASROC
64 x ESSM
16 x LACM (Land attack cruise missile)
32 x LR AAW
16 x BMD

128 cells could provide all of that all of the time...or any combination as needed by the mission.