Yes, you are right, Peter Valikiy did come out for that exercise. Here's a Russian defense analysts take on those exercises...it's not too positive a picture...
Popeye, you, Obi Wan, amnd Seadog may be interested in reading this.
Aegis Type ships information
- Thread starter planeman
- Start date
Popeye, you, Obi Wan, amnd Seadog may be interested in reading this.
bigstick61
Junior Member
The Pyotr Velikiy is active, as far as I know. Of the other two, one is being refurbished and being prepared for recommissioning, and the other will undergo the same pending the arrival of all of the funds required. The lead ship of the class was recently scrapped.
Well, it looks like she has been in and out of service since 2000. She definitely has been involved in two major exercises - August of 2000 when she was to be the training target for the ill fated Kursk - and - November 2004 for the big exercises in the Atlantic. Outside of that, I cannot find a lot of regular time at sea. But that has not been too unusual for the Russian Fleet the least few years.
I wonder, was she involved in the big exercises with China in 2005, Peace Mission 2005? I do not think any of the Northern Fleet was there, just the Pacific Fleet, but am not sure.
szbd
Junior Member
In peace mission 2005, Russian had 3 ships paticipated. A udaloy, a sov and an alligator LST.
And thanks for the link to that report. It seems russian navy is really in a bad shape.
Tasman
Junior Member
Jeff asked a question in another thread re Australian AEGIS news.
Somewhat surprisingly the Spanish F100 frigate has emerged as favourite to win the Australian AEGIS order for three air warfare ships. Up until recently the F100 was regarded as the fall back option in case the Gibbs and Cox evolved design based on the Arleigh Burke class destroyer ran into design difficulties and became too risky. Now it seems that Defence has recommended to cabinet that the Spanish ship be chosen because it is cheaper, can be delivered sooner, and constitutes less risk. I would have thought all of these things were obvious before the detailed design of the G&C even got underway. How on earth a destroyer with 64 VLS cells, and 2 helos, amongst other things would not be more expensive than a frigate with 48 VLS cells and 1 helo is beyond me. It is also obvious that an existing ship constitutes less risk and is likely to be able to be built faster than a new design!
My understanding is that the navy top brass will fight this recommendation as the CNS is on record as saying that the navy wanted, "Capability, capability and capability," from its new air warfare destroyer. The navy also wants the design to be future proof with the capacity to take on new roles such as theatre ballistic missile defence or land attack missions, should these needs arise in the future. This would involve additional VLS cells, over and above the 64 in the evolved design and is something the F100, in its baseline form, just cannot provide.
One positive thing that could come from a decision in favour of the F100 is the possibility of a fourth ship being acquired as this would make up for the loss of 48 (3x16) VLS cells and partly cover the loss of the second helo. Severe problems with the retention of experienced personnel in the RAN, however, could make it difficult to man a fourth ship unless an Anzac class frigate is decommissioned early. As both the G&C and the F100 have similar sized crews the RAN will be keen to get the greatest possible capability per crew member and this argument favours the more powerful ship.
Cheers
Somewhat surprisingly the Spanish F100 frigate has emerged as favourite to win the Australian AEGIS order for three air warfare ships. Up until recently the F100 was regarded as the fall back option in case the Gibbs and Cox evolved design based on the Arleigh Burke class destroyer ran into design difficulties and became too risky. Now it seems that Defence has recommended to cabinet that the Spanish ship be chosen because it is cheaper, can be delivered sooner, and constitutes less risk. I would have thought all of these things were obvious before the detailed design of the G&C even got underway. How on earth a destroyer with 64 VLS cells, and 2 helos, amongst other things would not be more expensive than a frigate with 48 VLS cells and 1 helo is beyond me. It is also obvious that an existing ship constitutes less risk and is likely to be able to be built faster than a new design!
My understanding is that the navy top brass will fight this recommendation as the CNS is on record as saying that the navy wanted, "Capability, capability and capability," from its new air warfare destroyer. The navy also wants the design to be future proof with the capacity to take on new roles such as theatre ballistic missile defence or land attack missions, should these needs arise in the future. This would involve additional VLS cells, over and above the 64 in the evolved design and is something the F100, in its baseline form, just cannot provide.
One positive thing that could come from a decision in favour of the F100 is the possibility of a fourth ship being acquired as this would make up for the loss of 48 (3x16) VLS cells and partly cover the loss of the second helo. Severe problems with the retention of experienced personnel in the RAN, however, could make it difficult to man a fourth ship unless an Anzac class frigate is decommissioned early. As both the G&C and the F100 have similar sized crews the RAN will be keen to get the greatest possible capability per crew member and this argument favours the more powerful ship.
Cheers
I agree. The fact that the F100 is cheaper to build, and quicker to build should have been obvious from the get-go. That does not mean that in the long run they will be best for Australian interests. it just means that the pols are getting involved and trying to water things down so they can point to their efforts and have it both ways and try and say:.
"I beefed up defense and held down costs so that social programs could have more money at the same time."
I would like to see the Australian Navy get a more capable AEGIS vessel, and hope that they ultimately do...but the F100 would certainly be better than no AEGIS vessel.
I was also very heartened by our earlier comment that the consideration was also going towards the Spanish Strategic Projection vessel. That's a good design with strong Sea Control and Amphibious Assault capabilities...and it will have F-35 capability and that alone could and should drive the issue of what type of AEGIS vessel to get. MAximize the defense of such vessels.
...in addition to the Ballistic Missile requirement and other requirements that the Australians would have out there "down under" that the Spanish may not have.
Last edited:
Tasman
Junior Member
The F100 is a fine ship and if it is selected for the RAN (I deliberately didn't say "by the RAN") will be vastly more capable than the modified OHPs that they will replace. Unfortunately it appears that they only just meet the baseline capabilities sought by the navy and that is a pity. The F100 certainly lacks the growth potential of the "Evolved Burke". I can't help but look at the new South Korean destroyer with considerable envy.
Cheers
In terms of armament, F-100 is actually extremely impressive for something of its size. In fact, in a standard config, it probably carries comparable number of air defense missiles as an AB (assuming that AB uses some cells for Tomahawk). And in terms of the hull, it's also a really stealthy look hull. The only major problem I have with it is that it only has 1 SPG-62 on each side.
There is an unconfirmed rumor that I heard that RAN should have picked PAAMS instead of Aegis due to the former's superiority on an INDIVIDUAL ship basis. That is a single PAAMS ship is superior to a single Aegis ship in terms of air defence. However, Aegis ships are superior in a group due to US datalinks than the PAAMS. (1 PAAMS ship > 1 Aegis Ship but 3 Aegis ships > 3 PAAMS ship) The rumor further states that since RAN will procure a limited number of ships, PAAMS is the best way forward.
Heck Tasman, we in the US have Burkes (28), Burke Flight IIAs (24), and Ticonderoga cruisers (22) and I look at the Sejong with envy!
Those are very, very nice ships.
I am developing a recommendation to send in to some of my U.S. Naval Institute and other friends for a recommended desing for a Ticonderoga replacement to start building in six or seven years so the first is ready ten years from now. I will post it on this thread when I am complete.
I know a lot of Europeans and some others feel this way. But having done a fairly in depth analysis myself, I just do not see that it is so.IDONT said:
AEGIS has a lot of real life experience behind it and it is being constantly updated to the latest technology avaialable based on that experience. Five major nations have now chosen AEGIS for their solutions and a total of 88 AEGIS vessles have been built to date, with 10 or more still under construction.
Three nations have chosen PAAMS and a total of six vessels have been built to date with a ten more to be built. I only say this to point out that the combined weight of all of those AEGIS ships speaks not just to their effectiveness as a group, but to the shear amount of research and development...and experience that is behind them.
AEGIS vessels carry more cells for a much wider range of applications, and for air defence, the SM-2 Block IV and the SM-3 out range and out perform the Aster-30 in many critical areas. The SM-6 will continue this trend.
Do not get me wrong, the PAAM vessels are very good and capable vessels, particularly at air defense. They are an absolutely fine addition to the nations that are building them and a great compliment to their allies. I personally however would not rate PAAMS as better than AEGIS.
Are they the equal in pure electronics? Perhaps they are...time will tell as both systems continue to evolve. But one on one, in overall effectiveness, I would still rate AEGIS as the more effective system.