Aegis Type ships information

planeman

Senior Member
VIP Professional
Jeff (sorry), just curious if you factored in the enhanced air-defence of the 76mm guns on the Horizons? I mean the OTO-Melara 'smart' rounds such as the Davide which it seems is pretty much a dead cert though still labelled as "under development" by OTO-M on their site:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


davide_1.jpg

DAVIDE System represents the evolution of the 76/62 Gun for employment as an inner layer antimissile defence system.

It provides the gun with the capability to defeat supersonic or subsonic missiles, seaskimming or diving.

It has been conceived as an add-on equipment, to allow retrofitting on the in-service 76/62 Super Rapid or Compact Gun Mounts.

DAVIDE System provides an RF guidance link to the projectiles in flight.

DART (Driven Ammunition Reduced Time of flight) is the smart ammunition fired and guided by the DAVIDE System.

A sub-calibre guided projectile with canard control and with high terminal manoeuvrability.

Guidance system characteristics:
* No limitation to number of projectiles in flight
* Data link to the projectiles
* All-weather

Projectile main characteristics:
* Full compatibility with existing 76/62 gun and FCS
* Proximity programmable digital microwave fuze
* Notched warhead
* Effective range > 5 Km

Fuze main characteristics:
* Radial sensitivity: > 10 m
* Operating altitude (above sea level): down to 2 m
* High reliability
* Burst point optimization


System performance:
* High effectiveness against all missile and aircraft threats
* Secondary role against small fast patrol boats
* Average number of rounds per engagement = 3

It sounds a very impressive system to me, must be much cheaper than RAM or Mistral units.

A typical OTO-M 76mm gun mount has 80 ready to fire rounds, so assuming (conservatively) 4 rounds per engagement, each gun mount could engage 20 targets before reload minus any non-smart rounds in the ready to fire magazine.

I'm pretty sure that the Horizon's 76mm guns are primarily meant for air defence not shore bombardment and with anti-ship close in defence secondary also.
 
Last edited:

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Jeff (sorry), just curious if you factored in the enhanced air-defence of the 76mm guns on the Horizons? I mean the OTO-Melara 'smart' rounds such as the Davide which it seems is pretty much a dead cert though still labelled as "under development" by OTO-M on their site:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


[qimg]http://www.otomelara.it/products/images/gallery/davide_1.jpg[/qimg]


It sounds a very impressive system to me, must be much cheaper than RAM or Mistral units.
That is a VERY impressive concept. If it is in fact developed and deployed, and if its tests prove it to work as advertised, I will upgrade the CIWS defense capabilities for vessels so armed.

I might add that the RAM system has already been deployed and has already been extensively tested with very impressive results. Hopefully this system will do likewise.
 

planeman

Senior Member
VIP Professional
Yeah, I reckon it's the next big thing and as well as the Horizon and FREMM, I think it'll have a huge impact in the smaller warship sector as a retrofit to existing OTO-Melara operators - so much for Gollie's anti-FAC rants, lol.

According to a 2005 press release on the OTO-Melara site it's being sponsored by Italian Navy and has completed some tests. They say finish to development in 2007:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Jeff (sorry), just curious if you factored in the enhanced air-defence of the 76mm guns on the Horizons? I mean the OTO-Melara 'smart' rounds such as the Davide which it seems is pretty much a dead cert though still labelled as "under development" by OTO-M on their site:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


[qimg]http://www.otomelara.it/products/images/gallery/davide_1.jpg[/qimg]


It sounds a very impressive system to me, must be much cheaper than RAM or Mistral units.

A typical OTO-M 76mm gun mount has 80 ready to fire rounds, so assuming (conservatively) 4 rounds per engagement, each gun mount could engage 20 targets before reload minus any non-smart rounds in the ready to fire magazine.

I'm pretty sure that the Horizon's 76mm guns are primarily meant for air defence not shore bombardment and with anti-ship close in defence secondary also.
that's what you get with company brochures, might even be the best main gun out there for air defence, but they really can't compared to the comtemporary CIWS or SR SAM in my opinion .
 

Scratch

Captain
... the enhanced air-defence of the 76mm guns on the Horizons? I mean the OTO-Melara 'smart' rounds such as the Davide which it seems is pretty much a dead cert though still labelled as "under development" by OTO-M on their site:
It sounds a very impressive system to me, must be much cheaper than RAM or Mistral units.

It pretty much looks like a capable system. But then again in new vessels you also risk of just adding too many CIWS systems. You'd then have to controll a lot of different anti#weapon types. However, it would be a nice upgrade for older vessels with Oto guns.
Did I understand I correct that every single projectile fired will be controlled by onboard sensors on it's flight path. Anyhow, I'm just somewhat critical of using that kind of guns in that role ...
I'd like to see the Oerlikon AHEAD concept installed in an onboard CIWS. Firing a mix of AP and AHEAD rounds.

The other option is to have a 48 cell A50 Sylver launcher + 16 or 32 cell A43 launcher. That way, you can get a decent amount of Aster 15s and you can just use the A50 VLS and use the second VLS just for Aster 15. I'm guessing A43 should be compact than A50.

That would be a good option for now. I remember to have read an article on that stating the A50 launcher is longer, but it didn't say something about width. I would exspact though that the A43 is narrower.
It the long run I think they should try a unified VLS that can hold one -30 and multiple -15.


Taken from the chinese carrier thread, but I thought it fits much more in here:
But we do have the Ticos and their service life is 30-35 years, which is 5-10 years away for the oldest Ticos still in service. At that point, a vessel like this, of course built in the states, would be an excellent replacement.

Like the Ticos, they [KDX-III] are more powerful than the Burkes and would benefit from all the latest technology.

The CGX would be the best solution...but it seems to be languishing.

From what I get the CG(X) is to emerge from the DDG-1000. However these are still in the planning stage. There was no first steel cut yet ...,or was there? With the soon to start replacements of the Ticos, time is running thin.
Of course they could be upgraded, but I exspect that to be really expensive. Would it even be worth the expense?
And then, I think currently there's a number of only eight Zumwalts projected, due to the heigh costs. Far from enough to replace anything.
If the CG(X) will become similary expensive, it won't be able to replace Ticos, IMO.
So, an americanized KDX-III seems a good idea to me. The 28cell domestic launcher replaced by another Mk41 and goalkeeper with Phalanx or another RAM. If the US is willing to import outside projects. But I would exspect they offered some help on the KDX-III already.

If the SKs really put six of them into service finally, they will definitly be able to controll their seas and skys above them, and even take that control of space rather far out.
 
Last edited:

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
With the soon to start replacements of the Ticos, time is running thin.
Of course they could be upgraded, but I exspect that to be really expensive. Would it even be worth the expense?
I think that an upgrade to the Ticos is doubtful.
And then, I think currently there's a number of only eight Zumwalts projected, due to the heigh costs. Far from enough to replace anything.
If the CG(X) will become similary expensive, it won't be able to replace Ticos, IMO.
I hope the CGX continues and is ultimately funded for full replacement of the Ticos. That would be the best option. But I have the same concerns as you do.
So, an americanized KDX-III seems a good idea to me. The 28cell domestic launcher replaced by another Mk41 and goalkeeper with Phalanx or another RAM. If the US is willing to import outside projects. But I would exspect they offered some help on the KDX-III already.
Agreed, and that was my point on this issue. NOw, the US Navy would have to accept the design. If they already had a lot to say in it (which I expect they did) then that would be easier, politically and institutionally. If not, it is less likely without a significant redesign, at least electronically.
 

bigstick61

Junior Member
And then, I think currently there's a number of only eight Zumwalts projected, due to the heigh costs. Far from enough to replace anything.
If the CG(X) will become similary expensive, it won't be able to replace Ticos, IMO.

I think that it's down to 6 or 7 ships now, and Congress has indicated that it may limit the class to only two vessels, calling them "technology demonstrators." While the lack in shipbuilding is a problem, I'm actually somewhat glad, as I think that the DDX and similar concepts are a bad idea for a fighting Navy. CGX is likely to cost at least as much and face similar problems as the DDX has, and that could threaten procurement of vessels, although like I said, I don't think that these concepts are good ones.

Nonetheless, having enough ships will be a problem. We already are lacking considerably in escorts, and as of a few years ago, no longer have any reserves to draw upon in case of need. The OHPs are going to be decommissioned within about a decade or so, and may go on a bit beyond their normal service life, but in any case, 30 ships will leave the fleet right there. The Ticonderogas will likely last somewhat longer, but they will eventually have to be phased out and replaced.

I think that the Navy really should come back down to earth on this matter. They really should look at more conventional, and less expensive and more effective (in my opinion) designs. Something perhaps a bit better than the Ticos should be looked at. While having AEGIS ships is all well and good, there is a need for ASW ships (such as the Spruance-class DDs) and for less expensive escorts (such as FFGs), in order to fulfill certain roles and for there to be enough escorts to go around without breaking the bank, while still being effective. Our Navy's current decline is horrible, in my opinion, and as of now, I don't see it getting much better, only worse.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
While having AEGIS ships is all well and good, there is a need for ASW ships (such as the Spruance-class DDs) and for less expensive escorts (such as FFGs), in order to fulfill certain roles and for there to be enough escorts to go around without breaking the bank, while still being effective. Our Navy's current decline is horrible, in my opinion, and as of now, I don't see it getting much better, only worse.
The Perry's have been stripped of their major war fighting capabilities and are more like patrol vessels now, outside of the helo capability. But they have been stripped of their AAW missiles and harpoons and are left now with a 76mm gun, one Phalynx and the 2 helos. They will begin retiring soon and that, as you say, is 30 vessels.

[Note, no missile launcher in the following photo]

USN-FFGOHPerry-1.jpg


The Spruance class had a lot of years left in them and had been built specifically to allow for technology upgrades throughout their service life...now they are all gone. The Ticos will begin going out in 5-10 years, that's another 22 vessels there. I believe if the CGX was fully funded and a full one for one replacement, that would be a good thing...but I also believe that a vessel like the KDX-III would also be good, and cheaper while still be at least as effective...and more so because it is more heavily armed.

We will have a lot of Arleigh Burkes for a long while to come and they are a good all around design...but adding the helos in the Flight IIA Burkes took out the Harpoons and the CIWS on most vessles, relying on ESSM in the Mk-41 cells for close in anti-air...and a potential Tomahawk derivitive for anti-surface work.

Just the same, multi-role AEGIS vessels are a very good thing...and we will have 55 of them for many years to come. Adding 20+ CG replacements, and 30+ FFG replacements (and the LCS has the capability with some of its interchangable packages to fulfill this role if we will build them) would help a lot.

Just my opinion though.
 

bigstick61

Junior Member
The Perry's have been stripped of their major war fighting capabilities and are more like patrol vessels now, outside of the helo capability. But they have been stripped of their AAW missiles and harpoons and are left now with a 76mm gun, one Phalynx and the 2 helos. They will begin retiring soon and that, as you say, is 30 vessels.

I'm well aware of this fact. I saw it firsthand. I also remember reading about it and seeing the pictures. It's unfortunate, really, that they've done that. A nice upgrade would have been something along the lines of what the Australians have done to their ships.

The Spruance class had a lot of years left in them and had been built specifically to allow for technology upgrades throughout their service life...now they are all gone. The Ticos will begin going out in 5-10 years, that's another 22 vessels there. I believe if the CGX was fully funded and a full one for one replacement, that would be a good thing...but I also believe that a vessel like the KDX-III would also be good, and cheaper while still be at least as effective...and more so because it is more heavily armed.

This I'm aware of as well, and it is very unfortunate, as those vessels were considered to be the best ASW DDs in service worldwide. At the least they could have maintained them in reserve, which was done during the Clinton years with other classes, but they've scrapped or sunk all but 7 of them, and plan to dispose of all but 2 or 3 of the rest. I think it wass a very bad move, andseriously affected the fleet in terms of capabilities. They were also sound surface warfare platforms as well, certainly better than the Burkes, with 8 Harpoons, the Mk 29 GMLS which could be used in a direct-fire role, and the two 5" guns.

I agree in regards to the kind of ships we should look at, such as ships like the KDX-III. I think a somewhat larger platform with a bit heavier weaponry would be practical in our case, and probably wouldn't cost too much more. We definitely will need good AEGIS vessels, although I don't think they should be the sole focus of future shipbuilding, considering other needs. As for the CGX, I just don't think the design is that great for a combat vessel. It's certainly very high-tech, but that's not always a good thing. I would prefer to see the Ticos replaced by something with similar or greater capabilities.

We will have a lot of Arleigh Burkes for a long while to come and they are a good all around design...but adding the helos in the Flight IIA Burkes took out the Harpoons and the CIWS on most vessles, relying on ESSM in the Mk-41 cells for close in anti-air...and a potential Tomahawk derivitive for anti-surface work.

I think surface warfare is an area where our vessels currently have considerable deficiency. I would like to see a more surface warfare and ASW oriented escort in service.

Just the same, multi-role AEGIS vessels are a very good thing...and we will have 55 of them for many years to come. Adding 20+ CG replacements, and 30+ FFG replacements (and the LCS has the capability with some of its interchangable packages to fulfill this role if we will build them) would help a lot.

I agree that AEGIS ships are a good thing. As for LCS, I have my doubts. Currently, funding could be an issue, and I can't really see a corvette-type vessel with those kinds of capabilities replacing FFGs.
 
D

Deleted member 675

Guest
As for LCS, I have my doubts. Currently, funding could be an issue, and I can't really see a corvette-type vessel with those kinds of capabilities replacing FFGs.

I'm not sure they're supposed to. My understanding of LCS is to provide a platform that can do the sorts of jobs conventional frigates found difficult, whether it was because there weren't enough of them, didn't have the right design/capabilities, etc. The Royal Navy may use smaller ships for patrol work and the like, using a number of "LCS-esque" ships to free up bigger ones for combat/escort duty.

As it stands, the USN could get a very capable platform from LCS - it just depends what they opt for in the end. Indeed LCS-2 seems to be packed with various systems, whilst having a top speed of something like 40 knots!
 
Top