AEGIS and AEGIS Like escort combatants of the World

Tam · Apr 24, 2018

Bltizo said:
Rotation rate.

30 revolutions per minute along on a dual faced panel means 60 updates per minute.

Inability to engage targets at 360 degrees.

Which isn't true. Keep in mind that the flat panel of the RIF-M has a 120 degrees FOV, and that can simply be turned around.

If the primary multi function PAR on a ship has an insufficient rpm then I consider that to be a problem because it means a reduced refresh rate.

NOPE. You can pulse an infinite number of pulses within a 360 degree rotation. With a slower turn, the radar can actually dwell on the target longer, which can be hit with multiple pulses. You can even stop the radar and just let it face and track the target.

If Sea Eagle or Fregat or whatever was being used as a volume search radar and it had a different radar with a fast refresh rate or fixed PAR as the primary MFR then that would be a different matter.

Fregat and Sea Eagle can manage a fast refresh rate. Sea Eagle having C-band in addition to S-band indicates its also being used for finer tracking. SPY-1D is S-band only, using the longer spectrum of the S-band for search and the shorter side for fine track. Fregat is also S-band only.

But in the case of 054A and 051C the Sea Eagle/Fregat unfortunately is the primary MFR.

You are quick to ignore it has secondary and trinary MFRs, the Type 364 and Type 366.

And you keep forgetting one thing, the 051C also uses the Tombstone radar also for tracking.

Unless you want me to give something like "no. of targets at each given direction engaged within a given timespan" I think that description is pretty specific.

Pretty useless definition. You can track hundreds of targets with a pretty loose track. High res tracking you can be down to four or six. Quality of track is inversely proportional to the number of targets tracked.

At any rate it is able to differentiate ships like 051C, 054A, Kidd class, etc from Burkes, 052C/D etc.

The 051C can engage 6 targets at one direction, meaning lighted and guided. The Burke only does two.

"In a jiffy" isn't quite the same as "at the same time".

Indeed, the 051C will never be blind, but it won't be able to engage targets in opposite hemispheres at the same time.
If 051C had two Tombstones I think it would be fair to call it an Aegis type ship.

I would say its fair enough because it can engage multiple targets and launch multiple missiles to deal with a saturation attack in a short span of time. As a PAR used as both as a tracking radar and an FCS, Tombstone is a league over MK-99 FCS.

I'm aware of the limitations of the Burke's deficiencies compared to ships that either have AESA MFRs or ARH SAMs or both.

Then you need to be aware of the concept of a "Post Aegis" ship.

But I don't think that detracts from my definition of what an "Aegis type" ship is. You could say that Burkes (or at least pre Flight III Burkes not equipped with SM-6s) fall on the less capable spectrum of what an "Aegis type" ship can do in terms of engaging with multi axis saturation attacks, which I won't disagree with.

I honestly think that ships like the Daring can handle multiple saturation attacks even better. Or the Sachsen class. Or the Japanese light destroyers using the ATEC system, which has eight AESA panels around. And for that matter, the Type 052C/D and 055.

Blitzo · Apr 25, 2018

Tam said:
30 revolutions per minute along on a dual faced panel means 60 updates per minute.

Address this below later.

Which isn't true. Keep in mind that the flat panel of the RIF-M has a 120 degrees FOV, and that can simply be turned around.

Okay, when it's pointed at one 120 degree sector, how does it cover the rest of the 240 degrees of the 360?

NOPE. You can pulse an infinite number of pulses within a 360 degree rotation. With a slower turn, the radar can actually dwell on the target longer, which can be hit with multiple pulses. You can even stop the radar and just let it face and track the target.

Okay, and when your radar face is dwelling on that target covering that 120 degree FOV, it leaves the rest of the 360 degrees blank.

I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing here.

Three or four fixed face arrays means you don't need to rotate a radar back to an aspect to refresh what you were looking at before.
But having a single or two face rotating array means if you rotate slower then it will take longer for a target in a given axis to refresh.

Fregat and Sea Eagle can manage a fast refresh rate. Sea Eagle having C-band in addition to S-band indicates its also being used for finer tracking. SPY-1D is S-band only, using the longer spectrum of the S-band for search and the shorter side for fine track. Fregat is also S-band only.

I could agree that 054A (and other similar ships like Grigorovich or even Sovs) fulfill the category of an Aegis type ship, but definitely on the very low end of the category, given their multiple Orekh illuminators.

IF, it has a refresh rate of 30 rpm. Doing a search I can only find a 12rpm for latest Fregat variant, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

051C, otoh would technically not be an Aegis type ship due to the inability to engage targets at 360 degrees simultaneously, even though its SAMs are obviously more capable than the Shtil and HHQ-16s that the aforementioned ships have.

You are quick to ignore it has secondary and trinary MFRs, the Type 364 and Type 366.

Far less capable than Sea Eagle/Fregat. Besides those radars are not the "primary" MFR.

In theory you can stick multiple sets of radars on a ship to fulfill the roles that a MFR like SPY-1, Type 346/A, SAMPSON, EMPAR etc are able to do, as older generation surface combatants did.

But that's why having a single powerful PAR system fulfilling the MFR role is one of the prerequisites I mentioned for an "Aegis type" ship.

And you keep forgetting one thing, the 051C also uses the Tombstone radar also for tracking.

Yes, but they only have one Tombstone radar so it is unable to engage targets at 360 degrees at the same time.

Pretty useless definition. You can track hundreds of targets with a pretty loose track. High res tracking you can be down to four or six. Quality of track is inversely proportional to the number of targets tracked.

That is why I gave my previous definition instead.

The 051C can engage 6 targets at one direction, meaning lighted and guided. The Burke only does two.

Burke can engage targets from 360 degrees at the same time. Opposing hemispheres, or at each of the three separate 120 degree FOVs around the ship.

I would say its fair enough because it can engage multiple targets and launch multiple missiles to deal with a saturation attack in a short span of time. As a PAR used as both as a tracking radar and an FCS, Tombstone is a league over MK-99 FCS.

If 051C had two or better three Tombstone radars then I think it could be argued to be an Aegis type ship.

Then you need to be aware of the concept of a "Post Aegis" ship.

I'm aware of that as well.

I honestly think that ships like the Daring can handle multiple saturation attacks even better. Or the Sachsen class. Or the Japanese light destroyers using the ATEC system, which has eight AESA panels around. And for that matter, the Type 052C/D and 055.

I don't disagree with any of that, and that was basically what that last part of my previous reply was saying.

However, I believe all of those ships should still be considered within the category of "Aegis type" ship, and that category has a spectrum of higher capability vs lower capability.

Putting it another way, in terms of multi engagement multi axis capability, I think the Aegis category can be described as such:

054A/Sovs/Grigorovich << Burke up to IIA, Tico, etc < 052C/D/055/Type 45/Euro APAR+SMART-L ships/Akizuki etc

But of course multi engagement/axis engagement isn't a reflection of the capability of an Aegis type ship even in terms of anti air and anti AShM missions, let alone the overall capability of an Aegis type ship.

Jura The idiot · Apr 25, 2018

a good joke about "light" here:

Tam said:
Or the Japanese light destroyers using the ATEC system, which has eight AESA panels around.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Ctrl+F "ATECS"

Tam · Apr 25, 2018

Bltizo said:
Address this below later.

Okay, when it's pointed at one 120 degree sector, how does it cover the rest of the 240 degrees of the 360?

Kills the targets first, then moves to the other sector. S-300 missiles are Mach 4 to 5, how long do they need to reach their targets soon enough.

Okay, and when your radar face is dwelling on that target covering that 120 degree FOV, it leaves the rest of the 360 degrees blank.

I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing here.

Three or four fixed face arrays means you don't need to rotate a radar back to an aspect to refresh what you were looking at before.
But having a single or two face rotating array means if you rotate slower then it will take longer for a target in a given axis to refresh.

You are only talking about the difference in speed, because soon enough, the FCR is going to turn around.

I could agree that 054A (and other similar ships like Grigorovich or even Sovs) fulfill the category of an Aegis type ship, but definitely on the very low end of the category, given their multiple Orekh illuminators.

IF, it has a refresh rate of 30 rpm. Doing a search I can only find a 12rpm for latest Fregat variant, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

051C, otoh would technically not be an Aegis type ship due to the inability to engage targets at 360 degrees simultaneously, even though its SAMs are obviously more capable than the Shtil and HHQ-16s that the aforementioned ships have.

If the Burke only has one illuminator in front, is that still an AEGIS ship and able to engage targets simultaneously?

In other words, you are defining 360 engagement not because you have 360 degrees of coverage from your PAR, but because of your fire control illuminators.

Far less capable than Sea Eagle/Fregat. Besides those radars are not the "primary" MFR.

More than enough for secondary functions. Type 364 helps cue the HQ-10 missile launchers for the Type 056.

In theory you can stick multiple sets of radars on a ship to fulfill the roles that a MFR like SPY-1, Type 346/A, SAMPSON, EMPAR etc are able to do, as older generation surface combatants did.

But that's why having a single powerful PAR system fulfilling the MFR role is one of the prerequisites I mentioned for an "Aegis type" ship.

Wrong. Even Arleigh Burke and Tico are chock full of secondary radars.

Yes, but they only have one Tombstone radar so it is unable to engage targets at 360 degrees at the same time.

That one Tombstone radar can engage six targets while three SPG-62 can only engage three.

That is why I gave my previous definition instead.

Burke can engage targets from 360 degrees at the same time. Opposing hemispheres, or at each of the three separate 120 degree FOVs around the ship.

So can old WW2 destroyers. FOV is not primary definition because FOV engagement is defined by where you place the fire control directors.

If 051C had two or better three Tombstone radars then I think it could be argued to be an Aegis type ship.

It would be more similar to a Type 052C. But its simultaneous engagement --- thanks to two faces x 6 targets --- means 12 engaged simultaneously, amounts more than a Burke to a large degree. If you have four panels with 6 targets engaged per panel, that means you can deal with 24 targets all at one time.

I'm aware of that as well.

I don't disagree with any of that, and that was basically what that last part of my previous reply was saying.

However, I believe all of those ships should still be considered within the category of "Aegis type" ship, and that category has a spectrum of higher capability vs lower capability.

Putting it another way, in terms of multi engagement multi axis capability, I think the Aegis category can be described as such:

054A/Sovs/Grigorovich << Burke up to IIA, Tico, etc < 052C/D/055/Type 45/Euro APAR+SMART-L ships/Akizuki etc

But of course multi engagement/axis engagement isn't a reflection of the capability of an Aegis type ship even in terms of anti air and anti AShM missions, let alone the overall capability of an Aegis type ship.

Multiple axis and target engagement is not strictly limited to "simultaneous" and 360 degrees. By this definition, the 054A is "Aegis like".

054A is much better than Sovs because of VLS opposed to a launcher that fires every six seconds.

054A is about equal to the Grigorovich. Orekhs may have target tracking capabilities on their own. Between 054A vs. Grigorovich comes down to the Type 382 vs. improved FREGAT.

Blitzo · Apr 25, 2018

Tam said:
Kills the targets first, then moves to the other sector. S-300 missiles are Mach 4 to 5, how long do they need to reach their targets soon enough.

... so, still not simultaneously.

You are only talking about the difference in speed, because soon enough, the FCR is going to turn around.

I think we might be talking past each other here.

If the Burke only has one illuminator in front, is that still an AEGIS ship and able to engage targets simultaneously?

In other words, you are defining 360 engagement not because you have 360 degrees of coverage from your PAR, but because of your fire control illuminators.

Yes. Such a ship would not be capable of simultaneous multi axis engagement.

More than enough for secondary functions. Type 364 helps cue the HQ-10 missile launchers for the Type 056.

Wrong. Even Arleigh Burke and Tico are chock full of secondary radars.

I never said that Burke or Tico (or 052D or 055 for that matter) do not have "secondary radars"....

That one Tombstone radar can engage six targets while three SPG-62 can only engage three.

Again, if 051C has more than one Tombstone I'd be happy to call it Aegis type.

So can old WW2 destroyers. FOV is not primary definition because FOV engagement is defined by where you place the fire control directors.

I consider that to be fairly important.

t would be more similar to a Type 052C. But its simultaneous engagement --- thanks to two faces x 6 targets --- means 12 engaged simultaneously, amounts more than a Burke to a large degree. If you have four panels with 6 targets engaged per panel, that means you can deal with 24 targets all at one time.

I consider 052C to be an Aegis type ship in the same category as Burkes, Ticos, Daring, Horizon, Kolkata, etc.

If 051C had one or two more Tombstones then I'd consider it to be worthy of being in the same categoryo as well.

Multiple axis and target engagement is not strictly limited to "simultaneous" and 360 degrees. By this definition, the 054A is "Aegis like".

As I said, 054A is on the lower end of spectrum for what I consider to be "Aegis type" (also please note I've been saying "Aegis type" rather than "Aegis like")

"Simultaneous 360 degree" engagement is an important prerequisite for my definition of an "Aegis type" ship.

054A is much better than Sovs because of VLS opposed to a launcher that fires every six seconds.

054A is about equal to the Grigorovich. Orekhs may have target tracking capabilities on their own. Between 054A vs. Grigorovich comes down to the Type 382 vs. improved FREGAT.

No disagreements here.

Tam · Apr 25, 2018

Okay, and when your radar face is dwelling on that target covering that 120 degree FOV, it leaves the rest of the 360 degrees blank.

I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing here.

You are not talking about the same thing.

Whether your radar turns at 15 or 30 or 60 revolutions per minute is irrespective of the tracking ability, as tracking radars can completely be stationary. The revolutions means how fast you are updating the entire search map every minute. But even if say, the radar is facing the target as it swings around, in that short dwelling time, it can send multiple pulses. The farther the target, the longer the pulse, because of the time the radar sends and then waits to receive the returning signal. With that, you get less updates. The closer the target, the more rapid and shorter the pulses are, and the more updates you get.

The fact that Type 382 has a C band in addition to an S-band, indicates its also meant to track targets fast and close, whereas its Fregat counterpart, being an S-band only, is more of a search radar.

Burke can engage targets from 360 degrees at the same time. Opposing hemispheres, or at each of the three separate 120 degree FOVs around the ship.

Only three directly illuminated. Otherwise you have to time share the illuminators with the other targets. In other words, three are only directly engaged, and the rest are waiting for their turn. The Burke can send multiple missiles up to the air, and then using datalink send each of them to their targets, but they are going to miss their targets if the illuminator isn't free and done with its previous target. Its a delicate synchronous ballet. A lot of things can cause the illuminator not to be free and stay longer on its previous target. A stealthier target or a heavy ECM environment means the radar has to dwell on the target longer, it can result in a longer lock time. The first missile may miss, which means the target needs to be continually illuminated for the second backup missile.

In other words, it still needs time to execute this juggling ballet. It needs to destroy a previous target before it can serially head to the next. That's not much different from the RIF-M since you would have to serially destroy all targets in one hemisphere, before turning to the next.

Now if RIF-M is packaged with 9M96E missiles, which are quad packed into each tube, these missiles are active homing. Active homing missiles can work with a "good enough" radar that can send target coordinates via datalink. A high degree of tracking precision isn't necessary so long as the target can fall into the "catch basket" of the active homing seeker, which can be quite large. If the Tombstone radar is engaged in one hemisphere, you can send 9M96E missiles to the rest, just using the Fregat to supply coordinates. A Type 054A can do the same thing in paper, if HHQ-16 have active seekers, and you don't need the Orekhs. Do you notice why European warships don't need huge honking radars when they are packing actively seeking SAMs?

Now lets talk about the 054A. You got four illuminators, with a logical layout each practically on a corner of the superstructure. Which lets you illuminate targets at this order: two at the front, two at the side, two at the other side and two at the rear. Burke is one at the front, three at the side (all three turned sideways) OR three at the other side (all three turned other sideways), and two at the rear. What's interesting on the 054A, is that since the illuminators are in the corners, the rear ones can turn as forward as possible, and the front ones can turn as rear as possible, resulting in situations where its possible to light three targets in each of the corner hemispheres of the ship.

The Sovremenny has six illuminators, so FOV is not a problem. The problem is that it has an arm launcher which only shoots one missile every six seconds. Make it two arm launchers, so it can at least simultaneously engage with two missiles at targets on any direction. But that means one missile each for two targets, or one target with two missiles, one as backup. Normally you would prefer two missiles shot vs. one target.

Tam · Apr 25, 2018

Bltizo said:
... so, still not simultaneously.

Yes. Such a ship would not be capable of simultaneous multi axis engagement.

But it is capable of handling saturated attacks in depth.

Again, if 051C has more than one Tombstone I'd be happy to call it Aegis type.

Doesn't matter for me. An S-300 has its own aura or quality when it comes to air defense. A ship with RIF-M is basically an S-300 battery on the water, and may outperform "Aegis-like" ships in terms of layered defenses and range of engagement.

I consider that to be fairly important.

It is important. It is by no means, definitive however.

What's more important is the size of the "bubble" it can project that it can deny use of airspace.

The term Aegis means "shield". Protecting your ship is one thing, protecting the fleet is another.

I consider 052C to be an Aegis type ship in the same category as Burkes, Ticos, Daring, Horizon, Kolkata, etc.

If 051C had one or two more Tombstones then I'd consider it to be worthy of being in the same categoryo as well.

An S-300 battery on the water has a quality of its own. It will certainly out range Darings, Horizons and Kolkatas. Its in a much better position to offer a layered air defense, it providing the outer ring, while ships with less AW range fill in the inner rings.

Blitzo · Apr 25, 2018

Tam said:
But it is capable of handling saturated attacks in depth.

Got to draw the line somewhere.

Doesn't matter for me. An S-300 has its own aura or quality when it comes to air defense. A ship with RIF-M is basically an S-300 battery on the water, and may outperform "Aegis-like" ships in terms of layered defenses and range of engagement.

---

It is important. It is by no means, definitive however.

What's more important is the size of the "bubble" it can project that it can deny use of airspace.

The term Aegis means "shield". Protecting your ship is one thing, protecting the fleet is another.[/QUOTE]

I think "Aegis type" should mean the characteristics that a ship has, not necessarily the depth or size of the capabilities that it projects.

I think you are misinterpreting the term "Aegis type" to mean that any ship which is "Aegis type" must always be more capable at air defence than a non "Aegis type" ship.

For example, Australia's refitted ANZAC frigates with CEAFAR AESAs and an 8 cell VLS holding ESSM can be considered an Aegis type ship.

However, that doesn't necessarily make it more capable at air defence, than say, the ROCN's Kidd class, as that class of ship lacks VLS and a fixed face or fast rotating PAR, but it is armed with a large magazine of SM-2s which have a much greater range than ESSM.

The term "Aegis type" therefore is not meant to be a barometer of inherent capability but a way of summarizing the number of ships of different weight classes and different depth in capability, by their core similarities.

Let me repeat -- just because a ship is "Aegis type" and another ship is not "Aegis type" doesn't necessarily mean the non-Aegis type ship is inferior in every regard to air defence or overall capability.

An S-300 battery on the water has a quality of its own. It will certainly out range Darings, Horizons and Kolkatas. Its in a much better position to offer a layered air defense, it providing the outer ring, while ships with less AW range fill in the inner rings.

See above.

Tam · Apr 25, 2018

="Bltizo, post: 505333, member: 4915"]Got to draw the line somewhere.

I think "Aegis type" should mean the characteristics that a ship has, not necessarily the depth or size of the capabilities that it projects.

I think you are misinterpreting the term "Aegis type" to mean that any ship which is "Aegis type" must always be more capable at air defence than a non "Aegis type" ship.

For example, Australia's refitted ANZAC frigates with CEAFAR AESAs and an 8 cell VLS holding ESSM can be considered an Aegis type ship.

However, that doesn't necessarily make it more capable at air defence, than say, the ROCN's Kidd class, as that class of ship lacks VLS and a fixed face or fast rotating PAR, but it is armed with a large magazine of SM-2s which have a much greater range than ESSM.

The term "Aegis type" therefore is not meant to be a barometer of inherent capability but a way of summarizing the number of ships of different weight classes and different depth in capability, by their core similarities.

Let me repeat -- just because a ship is "Aegis type" and another ship is not "Aegis type" doesn't necessarily mean the non-Aegis type ship is inferior in every regard to air defence or overall capability.

See above.

I just feel that all these are just self defined boundaries and goal posts as to accommodate what is Aegis like and what's not. These boundaries are created to somehow include the European warships.

A Type 051C would still be superior to an ANZAC with CEFAR in terms of denial of air space.

If you like to create boundaries and definitions, here is mine.

There are two tiers of AAW warships.

Tier II --- Missile defense. Mainly to defend itself and other fleet ships from massed attacks of incoming missiles.

Tier I --- Includes Tier II abilities but also adds Area and Aerial Denial. The ability to target and destroy aircraft before they reach into missile launching or bombing range, deny airspace for all sorts of aircraft including maritime patrol and AEWC aircraft.

The main separation of the two are range.

ANZAC with CEFAR would belong to Tier II. So is Daring, every FREMM and Horizon class, Japan ATECS, Type 054A, Admiral Grigorovich, Kolkata class, and so on.

Tier I would be AEGIS(TM) ships, and outside of that, RIF-M ships, and I tend to think Type 052C/D and 055 destroyers, namely the Type 346 radar/HHQ-9 missile combination.

In terms of tactical usage within a battle group, the Tier 1 ships could create the outer bubble or shield, while Tier 2 ships create the second bubble layer.

Blitzo · Apr 25, 2018

Tam said:
I just feel that all these are just self defined boundaries and goal posts as to accommodate what is Aegis like and what's not. These boundaries are created to somehow include the European warships.

I feel like these boundaries came up to me fairly naturally.

And again, it's Aegis type, not Aegis like

A Type 051C would still be superior to an ANZAC with CEFAR in terms of denial of air space.

If you like to create boundaries and definitions, here is mine.

There are two tiers of AAW warships.

Tier II --- Missile defense. Mainly to defend itself and other fleet ships from massed attacks of incoming missiles.

Tier I --- Includes Tier II abilities but also adds Area and Aerial Denial. The ability to target and destroy aircraft before they reach into missile launching or bombing range, deny airspace for all sorts of aircraft including maritime patrol and AEWC aircraft.

The main separation of the two are range.

ANZAC with CEFAR would belong to Tier II. So is Daring, every FREMM and Horizon class, Japan ATECS, Type 054A, Admiral Grigorovich, Kolkata class, and so on.

Tier I would be AEGIS(TM) ships, and outside of that, RIF-M ships, and I tend to think Type 052C/D and 055 destroyers, namely the Type 346 radar/HHQ-9 missile combination.

In terms of tactical usage within a battle group, the Tier 1 ships could create the outer bubble or shield, while Tier 2 ships create the second bubble layer.

I have nothing against your system of categorizing ships to Tier 1 and Tier 2.

However I think it can be complementary to my Aegis type vs non Aegis type ships.
I.e.: Tier 1 and Tier 2 Aegis type ships, and Tier 1 and Tier 2 non Aegis type ships.

AEGIS and AEGIS Like escort combatants of the World

Tam

Brigadier

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

Jura The idiot

General

Tam

Brigadier

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

Tam

Brigadier

Tam

Brigadier

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

Tam

Brigadier

Blitzo

Lieutenant General