AEGIS and AEGIS Like escort combatants of the World

Jeff Head said:

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.

Click to expand...

FORBIN said:

Yes and wecan see with these limitations VLS have an enormous problem, while launchers with arms can be reloaded, abnormal !

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

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.

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

I think the VLS with 64 missiles is far better than the arm launchers with 40, or however many.

The ability to launch multiple missiles very quickly is critical in today's environment...critical to the point of the life of the ship depending on it in any serious attack by ASMs.

That's why they US need to get to 128 cells for its Tico replace3ments and ultimately (IMHO) for its DDGs too.

The 80 PVLS idea for the Zumwalt's is a GREAT idea in terms of limiting battle damage...but that ship is large enough to ave been able to put 128 cells on.

Even with 80, and the versatility of the PVLS launchers, it is a good thing...it just should be more.

But, if they get one large rail gun and two smaller, CIWS rail guns on board the ships eventually, it will mitigate the issue because the CIWS rail guns are going to be hell on wheels when it comes to close in anti missile defense.

Click to expand...

FORBIN said:

A futur CG with a Zumwalt hull and a gun in less have the 128 cellules, the 48 cell's or about replace a turet.

Click to expand...

Bltizo said:

four are aegis type destroyers

Click to expand...

Janiz said:

None of them is 'aegis type' destroyer...

Click to expand...

Bltizo said:

Note I wrote "aegis type" not "Aegis (TM) type".

abridged definitions:
Aegis (TM) type = ships equipped with Aegis combat system, including Ticos, Burkes, Kongo, Atago, Sejong, Hobart, F100 etc
Aegis type = ships with fixed or fast rotating PAR + VLS + integrated combat system, including 052C/D, Type 45, F124, Horizon etc

Click to expand...

antiterror13 said:

@Janiz is just an annoying member here, nothing substantial come out from that member and he/she has been very aggressive .... he/she has been banned and warned multiple times .. he is in my ignored list for a reason

Click to expand...