vincelee said:
by the way, do you by chance known the maximum number of targets AEGIS can engage at one time? I know it can monitor over 100, but to actually illuminate them all is pretty much impossible at this stage.
Yes, it can monitor well over 100. But illuminating them all (I think you mean for targeting) would be totally unnecessary. It's difficult to muster that kind of force in this day and age against a modern CSG anyway. Basically, you can sum it up this way:
The Aegis cruiser has four missile-directors, and 30 guidance channels. The cruisers from CG-52 onwards have those Mk41 VLS systems, which are VERY reliable and proven.
Each SM-2 Standard SAM of the Aegis system has three phases of flight: INS, MCG and terminal SARH. There are 92 SM-2s on the first five ships of the Tico-class (phased out), and, if I recall this correctly, 122 on the remaining ships. Arleigh Burkes carry 98. The Flight IIA's carry more.
So, now, when an Aegis cruiser is facing, for example, 24 incoming Anti-Ship Missiles, and is put on "auto", it functions something like this:
The system volleys the first four missiles, firing four SM-2's. As soon as the SAMs reach the MCG phase, the system will volley four additional missiles targeting SSMs #5, 6, 7 and 8; as soon as the first four SAMs reach terminal phase the system lights its directors, the system then takes the SM-2's 5, 6, 7 and 8 into the MCG, and fires four new missiles against targets 9, 10, 11, and 12. According to sources, the illuminators only need to "flash" the target in order to complete it's flight profile.
So, the Aegis can therefore simultaneously guide 12 SAMs at single targets. That's the unclassified version. But that's not all, however, there are several rates of fire, so you can set the system to engage every incoming target with two missiles. In that case it is going to simultaneously guide 24 SAMs against 12 different targets and time-share the illuminators.
And it also has six spare guidance channels. And don't forget about it's ability to cooperatively engage and use time-sharing management. So, it can take over SM-2s fired by other ships with the spare guidance channels. It can also use channels from other ships. Eventually, if totally saturated (unlikely in this day and age), the single ship system could for a few seconds take up to 30 SM-2s under control. Combine 3 Tico's and 1 Arleigh Burke and you could theoretically direct over 90 missiles simultaneously. In this regard, it's easy to see how a CSG with four AEGIS combatants can deal with 50 or more anti-ship missiles in an all out naval engagement. And I haven't even touched on point-defenses yet.
Now, how many of these would hit is another question. But rest assured there is plenty of margin for error built in to the system. Clearly, the Aegis was never tested in combat. But it has been tested under very realistic combat conditions using super-sonic targets and myriads of ECM and other sensor coverages.
And that's not all. The SM-2 can be used in the anti-ship role(In conjunction with Harpoon) while defending against aircraft and missile threats simultaneously. Not only is the SM-2 relatively large for a SAM, but it has a decent enough sized warhead for the anti-ship role. Plus it's kinetic energy can easily shear it through tough ship hulls (killing personnel), and/or easily splicing exposed missile launchers and radar masts, effectively mission killing the ship itself.
So, I'd say the system is good and extremely difficult to duplicate. The Soviets gave up their version called Skywatch in the late 1980's due to tracking and coordinated fire problems they had in their own system. The U.S. AEGIS system has proven a very high pk rate. If nothing else its predecessors had a high pk rate and this was proven in combat during the Vietnam War. And this system goes way beyond those. And remember this is just the unclassified stuff. The real goodies would probably make your jaw hit the floor in awe.
@MIGleader - The entire front and sides of the Arleigh Burke are curved and angled. The steel mast you see behind the bridge is behind all this angling and curves. Still not a very big target for a radar to see. Plus if I remember right, the mast itself has a highly curved surface that doesn't provide much for the radar to bounce off of anyway. I would more agree that the antenna's themselves would be a problem, but not much. Arleigh Burkes have proven difficult to find and target even for the USN's ships in fleet exercises. That's why I say most ship-to-ship warfare would easily be within range of HArpoon and SM-2's. And that's why the super long ranges of anti-ship missiles seem to be bogus. Can't target and kill what you can't see.
And BTW, the Type 730 is based (probably stolen) from the Dutch Goalkeeper system. It's much too similar for it not to be. Good system, yes. Comparable to Phalanx, maybe. But the tracking systems in Phalanx are superior to Goalkeeper. And I'm not sure what PLAN uses in Type 730.
I'm just looking objectively here. China, at this moment has nothing comparable to US surface combatants. And the new type 052B's and type 051's don't look as though they will measure up. But give China a break here. In all fairness, they look pretty decent for a first try. Another thing here is the paradigm in China right now is to develop a system (AEGIS-like) that the US is already working beyond. I would be very interested to see what China is working on with this current configuration of rotary type VLS and PAR. But it's not AEGIS compatible. It wouldn't surprise me if the French Thales system was what the system revolves around. And that system does not even come close to what's in AEGIS baseline 4.
