Aegis Type ships information
- Thread starter planeman
- Start date
D
Deleted member 675
Guest
Re: South Korean AEGIS destroyer photos
I wouldn't know what you might be expecting. All I know is that they have:
Baseline NTU mod for the AAW system, plus NTDS
SQS-53D sonar (digital version)
You'd probably be better placed to research the upgrades they got, as I'm not familiar with their original systems.
Of course.
I wouldn't know what you might be expecting. All I know is that they have:
Baseline NTU mod for the AAW system, plus NTDS
SQS-53D sonar (digital version)
You'd probably be better placed to research the upgrades they got, as I'm not familiar with their original systems.
Of course.
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: South Korean AEGIS destroyer photos
In essence, within the next few years, that's 9-10 additional, very capable AEGIS vessels in WESTPAC that the US can depend on and work with in training and in the event of any more serious conditions. 7 of those vessels are already launched, the latest being this extremely strong KDX-III being launched this week.
I am going to be monitoring the net for pics of the launch ceremony this week and will post what I find here, if I find anything.
Given the level of investment, I bet Spain and SKOR will be getting and doing the same.
In essence, within the next few years, that's 9-10 additional, very capable AEGIS vessels in WESTPAC that the US can depend on and work with in training and in the event of any more serious conditions. 7 of those vessels are already launched, the latest being this extremely strong KDX-III being launched this week.
I am going to be monitoring the net for pics of the launch ceremony this week and will post what I find here, if I find anything.
Re: South Korean AEGIS destroyer photos
Also, I'm not sure if F-124/5 and the new Danish AAW should be added to that Aegis-like list.
The thing about Kolkata class is that they built the ships without fully deciding on what to equip on their. For a long time, they were talking about the Barak + MF-Star combination, but now America has offered Aegis to them. Not insulting India, but this to me is a huge mistake knowing how slow the Indian beauraucracy is.
Also, I'm not sure if F-124/5 and the new Danish AAW should be added to that Aegis-like list.
Re: South Korean AEGIS destroyer photos
If the F124 is outfitted like the Dutch D7...I have the Dutch vessel on there now ...then the F124 definitely should be on there. Again, my criteria is: PARS, VLS, and an digital integrated battle managemnt system potentially capable of data link and cooperative engagement.
Getting back on topic...the KDX-III, or Ahn Yong Bok class clearly has all of this. I bet they will be able to be data linked to the KDX-II class for sure.
If the Kolkata gets AEGIS, they will definitely go on the list...but, like you, I do not expect a decision on that for some time.
If the F124 is outfitted like the Dutch D7...I have the Dutch vessel on there now ...then the F124 definitely should be on there. Again, my criteria is: PARS, VLS, and an digital integrated battle managemnt system potentially capable of data link and cooperative engagement.
Getting back on topic...the KDX-III, or Ahn Yong Bok class clearly has all of this. I bet they will be able to be data linked to the KDX-II class for sure.
Re: South Korean AEGIS destroyer photos
Well, I could post a thread about that separately if you want, but since this is planeman's thread, maybe ask him about the name change to this one. I'm okay with it either way.
Last edited:
Re: South Korean AEGIS destroyer photos
Jim, excellent AEGIS analysis that's hard to fault, but I'm curious why VLS is a determining factor. The US modular multi-missile-type VLS is definately the best solution on paper, but most other VLS solutions are missile-type specific which does have its own advantages.
By your definitions the Triconderogas only became AEGIS after being refitted with VLS???
Whether a weapon system is within "AEGIS" (sic) or outside would have more to do with whether its integrated with the main ship battle management system than simply whether its in a VLS(?). I.e. An AEGIS ship could install a new missile, say an anti-radiation drone, into its VLS but controlled from a seperate system and that would be no different from launching the same drone off a rail off the back in terms of capability. Similarly if the SM-3s were slant launched from box launchers but controlled by the AEGIS system that'd not be a huge difference in capability relative to putting them in the VLS.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that VLS is a fashion generally applied by AEGIS(/like) designs but not a defining or necessary feature IMO.
Another issue id the "all aspects of combat" - correct me if I'm wrong but most AEGIS-Like vessels have pretty limited anti-submarine capability and that that they do have is semi-outside the AEGIS system.
Also I wouldn't include Nansen because it lacks the long range SAMs.
And on SAMs, did you factor in the active/SARH factor and anti-missile capabilities?
Not that I'd change your list or the overall results of your analysis. Sorry to sound negative, I'm just taking an ointerest in your work
Jim, excellent AEGIS analysis that's hard to fault, but I'm curious why VLS is a determining factor. The US modular multi-missile-type VLS is definately the best solution on paper, but most other VLS solutions are missile-type specific which does have its own advantages.
By your definitions the Triconderogas only became AEGIS after being refitted with VLS???
Whether a weapon system is within "AEGIS" (sic) or outside would have more to do with whether its integrated with the main ship battle management system than simply whether its in a VLS(?). I.e. An AEGIS ship could install a new missile, say an anti-radiation drone, into its VLS but controlled from a seperate system and that would be no different from launching the same drone off a rail off the back in terms of capability. Similarly if the SM-3s were slant launched from box launchers but controlled by the AEGIS system that'd not be a huge difference in capability relative to putting them in the VLS.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that VLS is a fashion generally applied by AEGIS(/like) designs but not a defining or necessary feature IMO.
Another issue id the "all aspects of combat" - correct me if I'm wrong but most AEGIS-Like vessels have pretty limited anti-submarine capability and that that they do have is semi-outside the AEGIS system.
Also I wouldn't include Nansen because it lacks the long range SAMs.
And on SAMs, did you factor in the active/SARH factor and anti-missile capabilities?
Not that I'd change your list or the overall results of your analysis. Sorry to sound negative, I'm just taking an ointerest in your work
Re: South Korean AEGIS destroyer photos
Ouch! I thought it was yours...better read those headers!..
As I check it was actually planeman who started this thread!
No need to start another thread....
Ouch! I thought it was yours...better read those headers!..
As I check it was actually planeman who started this thread!
No need to start another thread....
Re: South Korean AEGIS destroyer photos
Otherwise, some very good points.
As to VLS, the capability of VLS compared to arm launchers is so definitive that that is why I included it. I believe for a vessel to truly take advantage of what the AEGIS software and processing can do (or other systems like it, ie. PAAMS) that VLS is an imperative. The US has retired all of the older Ticonderogas...early by the standards of the day...because of the arm launchers and the intrinsic limit they caused for the AEGIS AAW capability on those vessels.
As to anti-submarine capabilities, my understanding is that the AEGIS system will control those firing solutions as well for itself or other vessels it is linked to cooperatively.
Anyhow...those are my reasons and the basis for that part of my analysis. Others will certainly feel differently about my rational and my weighting and equation and they can massage it accordingly to come up with their own.
Now, as to the KDX-II, it is my belief that short of the experience level obtained by the US Navy, and the shear number of vessels in class...the KDX-III is the most capable in terms of raw fire power. I believe you have to factor in the experience level and the number of platforms for a true reflection of the overall effectivness however.
It's Jeff...and I am sorry for attributing the thread to IDONT, I see it is yours and have correected my fomrer post accordingly.Jim, excellent AEGIS analysis that's hard to fault, but I'm curious why VLS is a determining factor. The US modular multi-missile-type VLS is definately the best solution on paper, but most other VLS solutions are missile-type specific which does have its own advantages.
By your definitions the Triconderogas only became AEGIS after being refitted with VLS???
Whether a weapon system is within "AEGIS" (sic) or outside would have more to do with whether its integrated with the main ship battle management system than simply whether its in a VLS(?). I.e. An AEGIS ship could install a new missile, say an anti-radiation drone, into its VLS but controlled from a seperate system and that would be no different from launching the same drone off a rail off the back in terms of capability. Similarly if the SM-3s were slant launched from box launchers but controlled by the AEGIS system that'd not be a huge difference in capability relative to putting them in the VLS.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that VLS is a fashion generally applied by AEGIS(/like) designs but not a defining or necessary feature IMO.
Another issue id the "all aspects of combat" - correct me if I'm wrong but most AEGIS-Like vessels have pretty limited anti-submarine capability and that that they do have is semi-outside the AEGIS system.
Also I wouldn't include Nansen because it lacks the long range SAMs.
And on SAMs, did you factor in the active/SARH factor and anti-missile capabilities?
Not that I'd change your list or the overall results of your analysis. Sorry to sound negative, I'm just taking an ointerest in your work
Otherwise, some very good points.
As to VLS, the capability of VLS compared to arm launchers is so definitive that that is why I included it. I believe for a vessel to truly take advantage of what the AEGIS software and processing can do (or other systems like it, ie. PAAMS) that VLS is an imperative. The US has retired all of the older Ticonderogas...early by the standards of the day...because of the arm launchers and the intrinsic limit they caused for the AEGIS AAW capability on those vessels.
As to anti-submarine capabilities, my understanding is that the AEGIS system will control those firing solutions as well for itself or other vessels it is linked to cooperatively.
Anyhow...those are my reasons and the basis for that part of my analysis. Others will certainly feel differently about my rational and my weighting and equation and they can massage it accordingly to come up with their own.
Now, as to the KDX-II, it is my belief that short of the experience level obtained by the US Navy, and the shear number of vessels in class...the KDX-III is the most capable in terms of raw fire power. I believe you have to factor in the experience level and the number of platforms for a true reflection of the overall effectivness however.