Aegis Type ships information

tphuang said:

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 .

Click to expand...

How do you know or rationalise that?

Scratch, re the Davide, it's semi-active homing using only a minor adaptation of the standard fire control radar - since the fire control radar would be actively tracking the incoming round anyway, in order to fire the 76mm gun (Davide or not you'd still be firing at the missile) it's basically a massive capability leap for minimal overhead and not likely to conflict with other CIWS.

An equivilent system is feasible for the AK-176 76mm guns in Chinese service but don't think China or Russia is producing an equivilent system.

Great discussion guys. Great insight bigstick61.

Question for you bigstick61>>. Did you serve or work for the USN in any capacity? If so you maybe eligable, in time, for a VIP membership.

Tico's are going away. My son served on the ex-USS Valley Forge CG-50 for just a year. 2002-03. That ship in it's last few years, despite is possible capablities, was reduced to drug interdiction & VBSS roles. What a waste.

My son also served on the ex-USS Paul F. Foster DD-964. Which according to him was more of a ship than CG-50 ever was. Intresting.

My son is now a Navy reservist. He has informed me that the USN is putting all it's chips in the Arliegh Burke and LCS basket. No matter what we may read or hear about the CGX and DDX programs I & he doubt seriously that those programs will come to fruition. Why? Need we ask? $$$$$$....

Question for you bigstick61>>. Did you serve or work for the USN in any capacity? If so you maybe eligable, in time, for a VIP membership.

Click to expand...

Sort of. I'm a Midshipman 3rd Class in the USNR. College program but not scholarship, unfortunately. I've already decided to pursue the Surface Warfare Officer career path. I seem to be one of the only guys interested in that field; most want to be SEALs, sub drivers, or pilots.

My son also served on the ex-USS Paul F. Foster DD-964. Which according to him was more of a ship than CG-50 ever was. Intresting.

Click to expand...

The Spruances were good ships. I went on a family cruise with my uncle aboard the USS Kinkaid (DD-965) out of San Diego, and I was very impressed with that ship. I still have a powder casing for one of the 5" guns in the garage. To bad she's at the bottom of the sea now. The next ship I went on was the USS Boxer, and I was very unimpressed. The USS Rentz was a good ship, though.

He has informed me that the USN is putting all it's chips in the Arliegh Burke and LCS basket. No matter what we may read or hear about the CGX and DDX programs I & he doubt seriously that those programs will come to fruition. Why? Need we ask? $$$$$$....

Click to expand...

Pretty much. As badly as the Navy wants the DDX and CGX, I doubt they're going to get them in any meaningful numbers. I can't say I'm disappointed about that specifically, though. From what I've seen on the DDX, I would not want to serve aboard one. Seems like a death trap to me. The CGX is similar in many design aspects. LCS looks like it could be in jeopardy right now as well. Where I am disappointed is in the mass decomissionings, and the elimination of the reserve fleet, along with shipbuilding that won't get anywhere near necessary amounts of warships produced. Two carrier battlegroups deployed to the Persian Gulf the other day, but there were only 9 ships total. It used to be that carriers had one or two cruisers, and 4-6 destroyers or frigates per vessel, along with replenishment ships, as a sort of standard. The current amount of FFGs, DDGs, and CGs could not hope to escort several convoys, and all major warships, amphibious vessels, and such, even with a reduced complement of escorts, something which would be required in wartime. The decline of the shipbuilding industry is alarming as well.

planeman said:

How do you know or rationalise that?

Scratch, re the Davide, it's semi-active homing using only a minor adaptation of the standard fire control radar - since the fire control radar would be actively tracking the incoming round anyway, in order to fire the 76mm gun (Davide or not you'd still be firing at the missile) it's basically a massive capability leap for minimal overhead and not likely to conflict with other CIWS.

An equivilent system is feasible for the AK-176 76mm guns in Chinese service but don't think China or Russia is producing an equivilent system.

Click to expand...

The current generation CIWS have extremely high firing rate, they can intercept concurrent supersonic Anti-ship missiles. And against single anti-ship missile, you are looking at 95% minimum interception rate. I'm not sure any main gun can achieve anything like that.

As for AK-176M, it actually has a faster rate of fire, but it doesn't have the same guided rounds as Oto Melera. That's definitely something China needs to work on.

I don't really buy the concurrent supersonic anti-ship missiles thing etc, except in extremely favourable conditions. It's like the Bruce Lee movies where Bruce is surronded by 10 enemies who take it in turns to attack him in a really predictable way and just hang there awaiting his admittedly impressive beating. Real world is always crapper, just ask the Israelis.

Re the OTO-Melara Davide system, it has a 5km+ range so that's a good 2km further out than most 30mm and 20mm CIWS. Each Davide round is like a missile except it's got a much faster initial velocity and decelerates. The muzzle velocity of the basic OTO-Melara Super Rapid 76mm is 945m/s (2114mph = Mach 2.8) and the round is a sub-calibre dart so it'll presumably bleed speed less than a normal round, except for the changes in course. So it combines the rate of fire and velocity of a gun with the range of a CIWS-missile.

Jeff, from your webpage



I noticed in LR AAW column, every ship has it. But the ESSM on Nansen is clearly different from SM-2 MR block IIIA on Burke IIA. How do you define LR AAW and SR AAW? Also, what is the SR AAW on Lanzhou?

planeman said:

I don't really buy the concurrent supersonic anti-ship missiles thing etc, except in extremely favourable conditions. It's like the Bruce Lee movies where Bruce is surronded by 10 enemies who take it in turns to attack him in a really predictable way and just hang there awaiting his admittedly impressive beating. Real world is always crapper, just ask the Israelis.

Re the OTO-Melara Davide system, it has a 5km+ range so that's a good 2km further out than most 30mm and 20mm CIWS. Each Davide round is like a missile except it's got a much faster initial velocity and decelerates. The muzzle velocity of the basic OTO-Melara Super Rapid 76mm is 945m/s (2114mph = Mach 2.8) and the round is a sub-calibre dart so it'll presumably bleed speed less than a normal round, except for the changes in course. So it combines the rate of fire and velocity of a gun with the range of a CIWS-missile.

Click to expand...

But the 76mm gun has at least 10 times lower firing rate than a normal CIWS. Also I can't see this gun comparing with RAM in anyway.

planeman said:

I don't really buy the concurrent supersonic anti-ship missiles thing etc, except in extremely favourable conditions. It's like the Bruce Lee movies where Bruce is surronded by 10 enemies who take it in turns to attack him in a really predictable way and just hang there awaiting his admittedly impressive beating. Real world is always crapper, just ask the Israelis.

Re the OTO-Melara Davide system, it has a 5km+ range so that's a good 2km further out than most 30mm and 20mm CIWS. Each Davide round is like a missile except it's got a much faster initial velocity and decelerates. The muzzle velocity of the basic OTO-Melara Super Rapid 76mm is 945m/s (2114mph = Mach 2.8) and the round is a sub-calibre dart so it'll presumably bleed speed less than a normal round, except for the changes in course. So it combines the rate of fire and velocity of a gun with the range of a CIWS-missile.

Click to expand...

The C-802 failure has nothing to do with CIWS.

As for concurrent supersonic anti-ship missile engagement, Consider this, the entire defense of 052C against anti-missile strike outside of ECM is dependent on the 2 Type 730 CIWS. And in one of the revealed exercise between 170 and 171, 170 was credited to have shot down 2 concurrent missiles from 171 using Type 730.

As for range, AK-176M is credited with the following:
"The outer range of this defense is provided by copy of the KBP AK-176, a 76mm gun with a 131 rpm that can fire proximity fused pre-fragmented round to create a cloud of fragments out to 15km."
I certainly would think modern CIWS with much shorter range is much better for air defense than that. so, I don't think range is an important here. And of note, 131 is higher than that of OTO-Melera, but still only about 1/40 of a CIWS.

Again, unless OTO-Melera can achieve the 95% hit rate claimed by most SR SAM and CIWS out there, it's just not the same level.

I have a dumb question here. Does Arleigh Burke IIA have AN/SPG-62 Illuminators, and how many? I read in globalsecurity.com and fas.org, they both say there's no AN/SPG-62 on Arleigh Burke. Then how to guide the SM in terminal phase?

They do not have SPG-62 illuminators. They use the SPY-1 phased array radar combined with the Mk99 Fire Control System.

Using the SPY-1D and her Mark 99 Fire Control System, these ships can guide vertically-launched Standard Missiles to intercept hostile aircraft and missiles at extended ranges.

Click to expand...

From .