Aegis Type ships information

S

Scratch

Captain
Re: South Korean AEGIS destroyer photos

Regarding the included ships, I think the Nansen is even designated an ASW frigate. It just has downgraded AEGIS capacities without area fleet defence capability (due to the lack of long range SAMs). Somehow AEGIS is very much connected to fleet defence AAW. However, it has the integrated battle management system.

According to naval-technology.com the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
FFGs have the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
CMS of Thales NL. Does that fit your criteria? The radars and VLS should also fit.

Another factor planeman brought into the discussion are the SAMs utilized by AEGIS (like) ships.
Performence wise (excluding range), I would argue that Aster missiles are somewhat superior to ESSM/SM-2.
The active radar homing and the outstanding maneuverability through the PIF-PAF fueture (miniature rockets at the CG wich allow a change of tracjority without interruption of aerodynamics) should really enhance the missiles effectiveness.
The Darings and Horizons will bring a very sophisticated AAW capability here, IMO. I'm very angious to see how they will perform. Though they lack the very long arm of the SM-2IV. But those systems could very well be supplemental.
The coming SM-6 will raise US capabilies in that regard.
On the other hand, I think every tube of the Aster launcher can only hold one -30 and also only one -15. Wich is a disadvantage to the SM-2/ESSM combo.

Is this thread now officially changed to AEGIS vessels, or do I have to say something to the KDX-III? It will fore sure form a very potent strike force with it's predecessors. Along with the Atagos, SE Asia is gearing up in that area.
 
bd popeye

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Is this thread now officially changed to AEGIS vessels, or do I have to say something to the KDX-III? It will fore sure form a very potent strike force with it's predecessors. Along with the Atagos, SE Asia is gearing up in that area.
Click to expand...

I felt the subject of Aegis ships merited it's own thread. Since we have a great discussion going..well here it is!!! So post away!
 
Last edited:
tphuang

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Re: South Korean AEGIS destroyer photos

Scratch said:
Regarding the included ships, I think the Nansen is even designated an ASW frigate. It just has downgraded AEGIS capacities without area fleet defence capability (due to the lack of long range SAMs). Somehow AEGIS is very much connected to fleet defence AAW. However, it has the integrated battle management system.

According to naval-technology.com the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
FFGs have the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
CMS of Thales NL. Does that fit your criteria? The radars and VLS should also fit.

Another factor planeman brought into the discussion are the SAMs utilized by AEGIS (like) ships.
Performence wise (excluding range), I would argue that Aster missiles are somewhat superior to ESSM/SM-2.
The active radar homing and the outstanding maneuverability through the PIF-PAF fueture (miniature rockets at the CG wich allow a change of tracjority without interruption of aerodynamics) should really enhance the missiles effectiveness.
The Darings and Horizons will bring a very sophisticated AAW capability here, IMO. I'm very angious to see how they will perform. Though they lack the very long arm of the SM-2IV. But those systems could very well be supplemental.
The coming SM-6 will raise US capabilies in that regard.
On the other hand, I think every tube of the Aster launcher can only hold one -30 and also only one -15. Wich is a disadvantage to the SM-2/ESSM combo.

Is this thread now officially changed to AEGIS vessels, or do I have to say something to the KDX-III? It will fore sure form a very potent strike force with it's predecessors. Along with the Atagos, SE Asia is gearing up in that area.
Click to expand...
Aster 15 may be a better interceptor, but you can hold far more ESSM. A typical config for Type 45 is only 32 Aster 30 and 16 Aster 15 I think. As for Daring and Horizon, I think Daring is a notch above Horizon, so I guess it depends on which one you are comparing to.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Re: South Korean AEGIS destroyer photos

Scratch said:
Regarding the included ships, I think the Nansen is even designated an ASW frigate. It just has downgraded AEGIS capacities without area fleet defence capability (due to the lack of long range SAMs). Somehow AEGIS is very much connected to fleet defence AAW. However, it has the integrated battle management system.

According to naval-technology.com the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
FFGs have the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
CMS of Thales NL. Does that fit your criteria? The radars and VLS should also fit.

Another factor planeman brought into the discussion are the SAMs utilized by AEGIS (like) ships.
Performence wise (excluding range), I would argue that Aster missiles are somewhat superior to ESSM/SM-2.
The active radar homing and the outstanding maneuverability through the PIF-PAF fueture (miniature rockets at the CG wich allow a change of tracjority without interruption of aerodynamics) should really enhance the missiles effectiveness.
The Darings and Horizons will bring a very sophisticated AAW capability here, IMO. I'm very angious to see how they will perform. Though they lack the very long arm of the SM-2IV. But those systems could very well be supplemental.
The coming SM-6 will raise US capabilies in that regard.
On the other hand, I think every tube of the Aster launcher can only hold one -30 and also only one -15. Wich is a disadvantage to the SM-2/ESSM combo.

Is this thread now officially changed to AEGIS vessels, or do I have to say something to the KDX-III? It will fore sure form a very potent strike force with it's predecessors. Along with the Atagos, SE Asia is gearing up in that area.
Click to expand...
I believe the F-124 German vessels should be included. They use PARS, they have VLS for the main missile battery, and they have a digital, comprehensive battle management system. I'll have them up tonight on my:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


...Later. Added the Sachsen in and the results were pretty surprizing. Came in just hundredths ahead of the Daring and the Horizons...mainly because of the two RAM launchers providing so much better close in defense. Take a look. The Sachsens are really nice vessels and the Germans already have all three in service, so that also helped because of the experience level.
 
Last edited:
S

Scratch

Captain
Re: South Korean AEGIS destroyer photos

tphuang said:
Aster 15 may be a better interceptor, but you can hold far more ESSM. A typical config for Type 45 is only 32 Aster 30 and 16 Aster 15 I think. As for Daring and Horizon, I think Daring is a notch above Horizon, so I guess it depends on which one you are comparing to.
Click to expand...
I think the sylver launchers on both vessels hold 48 tubes for either one -30 or one -15. That's not really that much, especially with only one -15 per tube.
I have yet to find how wide their respective boosters are and if their wings can be folded. With a body diameter of the KV of 18cm, I would say from pictures that the -30 booster is around 40cm (between SM-2 block III and block IV) and the -15 perhaps 25cm. I really hope they further refine that in the future to get more -15s in one -30 tube. Because I really think we produced a very capable round here, it just needs to improve in "operationality".

Jeff Head said:
Added the Sachsen in and the results were pretty surprizing. Came in just hundredths ahead of the Daring and the Horizons...mainly because of the two RAM launchers providing so much better close in defense. Take a look. The Sachsens are really nice vessels and the Germans already have all three in service, so that also helped because of the experience level.
Click to expand...
Nice to see it there. Well, generally a pretty nice site you made up there. As well as the worldCVs. Wonder what comes next, subs ...?
I think another reason why it performed so well is that it embarks two helos in contrast to most other european vessels that only have one. (The # of helos playing an importand role in your estimates).
The introduction went smooth. However, I would have liked to see at least one more. They are our only real AAW vessels. I'd be happy if at least the four Brandenburgs would recieve an ESSM upgrade from the only 16 SeaSparrow.
 
D

Deleted member 675

Guest
Re: South Korean AEGIS destroyer photos

tphuang said:
Aster 15 may be a better interceptor, but you can hold far more ESSM. A typical config for Type 45 is only 32 Aster 30 and 16 Aster 15 I think.
Click to expand...

Although it is true you can quad-pack ESSMs into a single cell, there simply isn't the need for that on the European Aster-missile ships. Maybe for ships operating in the Pacific because of the concern over China, but the Royal and French Navies simply aren't going to face that sort of threat. Plus if you have a better interceptor, you need fewer of them.

Also there is scope for adding more VLS cells.
 
P

Pointblank

Senior Member
Re: South Korean AEGIS destroyer photos

FuManChu said:
Although it is true you can quad-pack ESSMs into a single cell, there simply isn't the need for that on the European Aster-missile ships. Maybe for ships operating in the Pacific because of the concern over China, but the Royal and French Navies simply aren't going to face that sort of threat. Plus if you have a better interceptor, you need fewer of them.

Also there is scope for adding more VLS cells.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. 4 ESSM's can be fitted using the Mk25 quad pack in a single Mk41 VLS cell that would have fitted a single SM-2 missile. If you are using the Mk48 VLS cell, you can only fit 1 ESSM in place of 1 Sea Sparrow.
 
D

Deleted member 675

Guest
Re: South Korean AEGIS destroyer photos

Pointblank said:
Incorrect. 4 ESSM's can be fitted using the Mk25 quad pack in a single Mk41 VLS cell that would have fitted a single SM-2 missile. If you are using the Mk48 VLS cell, you can only fit 1 ESSM in place of 1 Sea Sparrow.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that you could quad-pack ESSMs into a Mk48 cell. Didn't mean to imply that was the case, if you thought I had.
 
bd popeye

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
You guys realize that you can't just pack as many VLS cells as the hull will hold. There are seaworthness factors, crew accomdations etc that have to be factored in before such modification can take place.

As an example at one time the USN considered installing MK41 VLS cells on an Iowa class BB. When the Naval engineers did the calculation it was recokned that the ship would become un-seaworthy with those VLS cell installed...More is not necessaily better.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 675

Guest
bd popeye said:
You guys realize that you can't just pack as many VLS cells as the hull will hold. There are seaworthness factors, crew accomdations etc that have to be factored in before such modification can take place.
Click to expand...

It has been confirmed that the Darings can have another 16-cell VLS fitted - some reports have suggested a 24-cell.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top