Aegis Type ships information

Totoro said:

Also, Jeff, if you're gonna accept other people's suggestions, how bout adding metric conversions in brackets, for dimensions and such?

Click to expand...

Perhaps Jeff can add a link like this site to his page;



Since I'm old and have no clue about the metric system other than a meter is a little longer than a yard. I find that site quite useful.

Jeff's site is very well done Just correct those typos and it will be perfect.

Scratch said:

Jeff, nice and informative pages. After reading Sejong site one minor thing though:

I guess it's a mistype and you mean 80?

Daring site, at the bottom:

=> allow and capably ...?

Click to expand...

Thanks...got 'em fixed. Also added the and (Horizon) pages for France and Italy.

It's coming together quickly and since I am proofing my own stuff...errors gets by me. Over a few weeks time I generally get emails telling me about those arrors. Again, thanks!

Totoro said:

how bout adding metric conversions in brackets, for dimensions and such?

Click to expand...

I will consider doing it. If it will fit in the area for the lengths, beam, draft, etc...and I believe it will. Thanks.

popeye said:

Jeff's site is very well done Just correct those typos and it will be perfect.

Click to expand...

Thanks popeye...am working on the typos as they are pointed out to me...like above from Scratch.

Totoro said:

Also, Jeff, if you're gonna accept other people's suggestions, how bout adding metric conversions in brackets, for dimensions and such?

Click to expand...

Ok, I have metric measurements in parens on all pages now and also have thre Lanzhou (Type 52C) page up. Take a look and let me know what you think.

LANZHOU (TYPE 52C) CLASS

Jeff, out of curiosity why are the Horizons STILL labelled Frigates even though both the French and Italian ones have 'D' prefixed numbers as is NATO format for Destroyers? Not that you are wrong, just that the whole media doesn't seem to have caught on that they are really destroyers even though their respective navies have finally admitted it.

Personnally I think Forbin is the meanest looking and that counts for a lot

Also, hasn't Forbin got a Sadral CIWS?



BTW, I've seen the De Zeven Provincien class "frigate" Tromp up close and she is VERY impressive. The built quality is awesome - the hull sides are so flat relative to RN warships I've seen that close (where each steel plate bows slightly), presumably to enhance the stealth.

planeman said:

Jim, out of curiosity why are the Horizons STILL labelled Frigates even though both the French and Italian ones have 'D' prefixed numbers as is NATO format for Destroyers? Not that you are wrong, just that the whole media doesn't seem to have caught on that they are really destroyers even though their respective navies have finally admitted it.

Click to expand...

It is probably political, but they continue to list them as Frigates, even on their official Naval sites, despite the "D" numerical designation. BTW...it's Jeff.

planeman said:

Also, hasn't Forbin got a Sadral CIWS?

Click to expand...

The Forbin does have a SADRAL system (6 missiles I believe) aft. I have already updated the Forbin page to include it. I will have to redo my analysis page as well, and it may make a difference in ranking since the Forbin, Daring, Italian vessels are so closely grouped.

...Later. It did make a difference. All of the Horizons and the Sachsen and De Zeven are so closely grouped, that the addtion of that additional CIWS moved the Forbin up to number 8.

Jeff Head said:

It is probably political, but they continue to list them as Frigates, even on their official Naval sites, despite the "D" numerical designation. BTW...it's Jeff.

Click to expand...

It is because the French don't use the term 'destroyer' as part of their navy although they do use the 'D' designation.

Pointblank said:

It is because the French don't use the term 'destroyer' as part of their navy although they do use the 'D' designation.

Click to expand...

Could be a language thing, although during World War II and before, the French clearly built destroyers. I expect over the years that a politically correct term for finance and budget purposes has developed...such things are not unusual and certainly not relegated or individual to the French.

The UK, the US, Japan, Russia and any number of other countries have done the same. For example, the 10,000 ton Virginia class was orignally listed as a frigate in the 1970s...then later changed to a cruiser (which is what it really was).

For Jeff. You ever heard of a naval nut called Jim Anderson? I converse with him a lot on another forum about obscure navies and I'm prone to typos at the best of times, sorry.

How would the current standard Kirov class fare in your analysis? A bit dated admittedly, but sheer weight of weapons.... just interested in how it'd fit in the ranking if it were eligable.

planeman said:

For Jeff. You ever heard of a naval nut called Jim Anderson? I converse with him a lot on another forum about obscure navies and I'm prone to typos at the best of times, sorry.

Click to expand...

Do not know the fellow. But, no problems.

planeman said:

How would the current standard Kirov class fare in your analysis? A bit dated admittedly, but sheer weight of weapons.... just interested in how it'd fit in the ranking if it were eligable.

Click to expand...

Well, the Kirov class does not really have what I would call an AEGIS-like system IMHO. The Kuznetsov (aircraft carrier) does, but I have heard that it is plagued with problems, and that the launch rate on their Klinok ADAM VLS is abysmal (1 missile every three seconds).

So, I did calculations on them and added the same limitations that I did for the non-Aegis DDG example in my calcs for the Kirov class, and gave a .5 rating for the AEGIS-like system on the Kuznetsov, even though the Kuznetsov is not an escort vessel which the site states is a primary consideration in my analysis.

Anyhow, with all that in mind, the Kuznetsov, with its AEGIS-like system comes in at number three behind the Ticonderoga and Sejong. The Kirov, even without an AEGIS-like system, comes in at number seven, behind the Kongo.

This is because of the massive number of missiles that each carries. How effective they would be in today's environment, particularly the Kirov, is not really known. The ability to jam or destroy radars with HARM type missiles would be a critical factor in all cases.

For the Kirov class it is kind of moot because none of the four are seaworthy at the present time. One is being refitted (Admiral Nakimov, ex-Kalinin), scheduled for completion this year, but the track record for Russia in meeting such schedules is pretty bad. In many cases, when the vessels go in for refit, they never come out again. The newest one, the Peter Valikiy (former Yuri Andropov), was commissioned in 1998, but has been laid up since 1999 for completion and repairs as I understand it.

As I remembered, there was a big drill in fall, 2004, at least Kutznezov, one kirov (probably Peter Valikiy), one Slava (probably Moskova) and one Kenda took part.