AEGIS and AEGIS Like escort combatants of the World

[Blitzo]

Today at 8:43 AM
another evergreen topic is 'true' classification of modern warships LOL like is she 'really' just a Frigate or 'in fact' a Destroyer, or this Cruiser is 'actually' a Destroyer, or ...

In the last few pages you've done more complaining about how they were off topic nearly as much as the rest of us have discussed the off topic subject.

At least my posts on the matter have been relatively constructive, if you're just going to make jokes or references about how a subject is OT across multiple posts, please consider otherwise.

 

[Blitzo]

Except that Flight III, FFG(X) does not use the AEGIS CMS, they use a derivative of it, like taking a step further, called COMBATSS-21. Hence why I prefer to call it a post-AEGIS system.

Furthermore, I would think that many so called Aegis like systems and ships are actually more like post AEGIS, with the use of AESAs over PESA type PARs that allows for a higher degree of frequency and scanning agility; digitally formed beams over mechanical illumination which greatly increase the numbers of targets being targeted simultaneously; using missiles with active homing guidance, which also increases the numbers of engaged targets.

The CMS for FFGX is yet to be determined afaik.

The CMS for Flight III AB afaik will be using the Aegis CMS: "and to interface with the Aegis combat system upgrades for Flight III"

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

As for the difference between "Aegis" and "post Aegis" -- IMO all "post Aegis" ships should still be considered "Aegis" type ships.

Repeating myself, I do not believe the SPY-1 and Mk 99 PAR and FCR system are requisites for what should consistute an Aegis type ship. Just because Type 45 or 052C/D uses a more advanced method of fire control doesn't mean they are "post Aegis," even if they may be more capable in some respects.

IMO the key parameter in that category is having a fixed or fast rotating PAR system that is able to simultaneously manage and engage multiple incoming aerial targets. The SPY-1/mk99 Vs SAMPSON/PAAMS vs SPY-6/AMDR Vs 052C/D system are all different routes to fulfilling that same requirement, even if some are more capable than the other.

 

[Tam]

The CMS for FFGX is yet to be determined afaik.

The CMS for Flight III AB afaik will be using the Aegis CMS: "and to interface with the Aegis combat system upgrades for Flight III"

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

As for the difference between "Aegis" and "post Aegis" -- IMO all "post Aegis" ships should still be considered "Aegis" type ships.

Repeating myself, I do not believe the SPY-1 and Mk 99 PAR and FCR system are requisites for what should consistute an Aegis type ship. Just because Type 45 or 052C/D uses a more advanced method of fire control doesn't mean they are "post Aegis," even if they may be more capable in some respects.

IMO the key parameter in that category is having a fixed or fast rotating PAR system that is able to simultaneously manage and engage multiple incoming aerial targets. The SPY-1/mk99 Vs SAMPSON/PAAMS vs SPY-6/AMDR Vs 052C/D system are all different routes to fulfilling that same requirement, even if some are more capable than the other.

Maybe you didn't read the RFIP for FFG(X). It clearly states COMBATSS-21 for the CMS.

The definition of using a PAR to simultaneously manage and engage targets happens to be pretty loose. That would also include the 051C and the Kirovs by the way. How will that include ships that have the FREGAT and similar like (aka Russian frigates, destroyers and Type 054A and 052B) that can also happen to manage and engage targets simultaneously? FREGAT is similar to SPS-48, because both are planar arrays using FRESCAN techniques for electronic beam steering. SPS-48 is kind of a "Pre-AEGIS" for USN AAW going back to the sixties and seventies, used in ships like the USS Enterprise, and still in use today like ships like the Nimitz class, Wasp and San Antonio class. Some would call FRESCAN planar arrays a sort of early form of phase array.

Calling ships AEGIS-like gives the impression those ships are also copies of AEGIS, which is unjustified. Post-AEGIS truly gives justice to where their position is in the tech tree. The use of AESA and active radar homing SAMs on European warships starting in the mid 2000s was a truly a conceptual advancement over AEGIS that is only coming to be met with Flight III Burkes. Another is that with the Type 052C and 052D, the Type 346 radar + HQ-9 combination, is actually closer to the S-300 line of development, and which in turn, is analogous to the Patriot PAC line of SAM development. That includes using C-band for missile guidance, missiles that include TVM or active guidance, target illumination arrays embedded in the main radar panel itself, typical features of land based SAM systems. These panels are not limited by mechanical illumination like on the AEGIS Mk 99 FCS, and could simultaneously engage 6 to 12 targets within the viewpoint of the panel. (A good reason why the 051C with RIF-M remains pretty potent).

 

[Blitzo]

Maybe you didn't read the RFIP for FFG(X). It clearly states COMBATSS-21 for the CMS.

It must have escaped my mind.

The definition of using a PAR to simultaneously manage and engage targets happens to be pretty loose. That would also include the 051C and the Kirovs by the way. How will that include ships that have the FREGAT and similar like (aka Russian frigates, destroyers and Type 054A and 052B) that can also happen to manage and engage targets simultaneously? FREGAT is similar to SPS-48, because both are planar arrays using FRESCAN techniques for electronic beam steering. SPS-48 is kind of a "Pre-AEGIS" for USN AAW going back to the sixties and seventies, used in ships like the USS Enterprise, and still in use today like ships like the Nimitz class, Wasp and San Antonio class. Some would call FRESCAN planar arrays a sort of early form of phase array.

Yes, that is why in my post #2212 I wrote "fixed or fast rotating".

I consider the refresh rate of SPS-48 and Fregat, Sea Eagle to be insufficient to qualify for that. OTOH, the EMPAR and SAMPSON are rotating arrays that go at 60 rpm which I consider to be the minimum threshold to meet the rapid refresh rate for fixed arrays.


[QUTOE]Calling ships AEGIS-like gives the impression those ships are also copies of AEGIS, which is unjustified. Post-AEGIS truly gives justice to where their position is in the tech tree. The use of AESA and active radar homing SAMs on European warships starting in the mid 2000s was a truly a conceptual advancement over AEGIS that is only coming to be met with Flight III Burkes. Another is that with the Type 052C and 052D, the Type 346 radar + HQ-9 combination, is actually closer to the S-300 line of development, and which in turn, is analogous to the Patriot PAC line of SAM development. That includes using C-band for missile guidance, missiles that include TVM or active guidance, target illumination arrays embedded in the main radar panel itself, typical features of land based SAM systems. These panels are not limited by mechanical illumination like on the AEGIS Mk 99 FCS, and could simultaneously engage 6 to 12 targets within the viewpoint of the panel. (A good reason why the 051C with RIF-M remains pretty potent).[/QUOTE]

I respectfully disagree.

I prefer to use the term "Aegis type" rather than "Aegis like". "Aegis type" suggests that this is a category of ship, of which the original Aegis (TM) ships were the pioneering members of. Considering that those ships were indeed the first vessels that capture the common key capabilities that we see proliferating among the high end surface combatants in the world, I think the phrase "Aegis type" is a polite nod to acknowledge that those ships were the first of the type.

The other important role of the phrase "Aegis type" IMO, is that it provides a fast and straight forward way of letting lay-people know what the key attributes of a certain ship labelled as "Aegis type" has.

When someone describes a ship as an "Aegis" ship, what do they usually think of? Is it VLS and SPY-1 and Mk-99? Well it might include the former two, but I suspect most people wouldn't be aware of the Mk-99 and the method in which the Mk-99 is used to guide SARH SAMs.

IMO, what people do think of, is the idea of a powerful radar with the ability to monitor 360 degrees around the ship at once (which I think we can reasonably stretch to include fast refresh rotating radars), the ability to launch multiple missiles and engage multiple incoming aerial targets at once, all tied up with a unified combat system.

 

[Tam]

It must have escaped my mind.

Yes, that is why in my post #2212 I wrote "fixed or fast rotating".

I consider the refresh rate of SPS-48 and Fregat, Sea Eagle to be insufficient to qualify for that. OTOH, the EMPAR and SAMPSON are rotating arrays that go at 60 rpm which I consider to be the minimum threshold to meet the rapid refresh rate for fixed arrays.

Slow rotating radars are meant for range and volume search. The slower the radar turns, the longer the scanning rate, the longer the range, the longer the time the radar dwells on the target, which increases the signal strength of the echo, which makes for a better return over longer distances. This is also accompanied by longer wave bands and longer pulse repetition frequency. This is not being outdated, the slow rate has a purpose. These radars cue other faster scanning and higher frequency radars to track the target for engagement. Radars generally look for a sweet spot between range and tracking rates; range is not the be all, and all for radar performance.

Some radars orient more for range, others for tracking performance and ships tend to carry both to get the best of both worlds. APAR+SMART L is a good example of this combination. On certain Russian ships, and with the Type 051C, you see this with the FREGAT, along with the RIF-M. FREGAT searches long range rotating a full 360 degrees, detects, then tracks the targets, cues the RIF radar, which is a Tombstone or Flap Lid type phase array, that tracks targets even further with a higher tracking rate, then engages them by lighting them up to guide SARH or TVM missiles to it.

In cases like the 054A, or Russian ships with FREGAT and Shtil missile systems, its likely the Orekh or Front Domes also act as tracking radars then switch to a single target track illumination mode, similar to a fighter jet radar, for missile guidance. My understanding is that Type 382 rotates more than twice as fast as FREGAT, with up to 30 RPM. With dual face, that means 60 scans per minute, and it also has a C-band mode for more accurate tracking. Radars like the Type 364 on the aft funnel and the Type 366 on top of the bridge also joins in with the search and tracking, which is also what they do on the 051C, 052C/D, all giving you simultaneous, redundant, full 360 coverage.

I prefer to use the term "Aegis type" rather than "Aegis like". "Aegis type" suggests that this is a category of ship, of which the original Aegis (TM) ships were the pioneering members of. Considering that those ships were indeed the first vessels that capture the common key capabilities that we see proliferating among the high end surface combatants in the world, I think the phrase "Aegis type" is a polite nod to acknowledge that those ships were the first of the type.

Air defense ships had actually existed before AEGIS. If the Patriot system was navalized, would you call it an AEGIS like system?

The other important role of the phrase "Aegis type" IMO, is that it provides a fast and straight forward way of letting lay-people know what the key attributes of a certain ship labelled as "Aegis type" has.

When someone describes a ship as an "Aegis" ship, what do they usually think of? Is it VLS and SPY-1 and Mk-99? Well it might include the former two, but I suspect most people wouldn't be aware of the Mk-99 and the method in which the Mk-99 is used to guide SARH SAMs.

IMO, what people do think of, is the idea of a powerful radar with the ability to monitor 360 degrees around the ship at once (which I think we can reasonably stretch to include fast refresh rotating radars), the ability to launch multiple missiles and engage multiple incoming aerial targets at once, all tied up with a unified combat system.

In other words, its just branding. You associate a brand to a certain quality, like Xerox is to copiers. or why "PC" which is an IBM copyrighted trademark, becomes associated to a whole genre of computers.

I like to be more specific, especially when the branding is associated with a copyright.

Regardless where the Tombstone phase array faces --- its not fully rotating, it turns and faces the targets --- this ship has full 360 coverage thanks to all the other radars you see up high. They cue the phase array towards the target or targets for engagement, where the array can concurrently engage up to six targets or even up to 12. Does this qualify as Aegis like?

 

[jobjed]

Air defense ships had actually existed before AEGIS. If the Patriot system was navalized, would you call it an AEGIS like system?

A key characteristic of Aegis not possessed by its predecessors and land-based counterparts is simultaneous all-aspect long-range anti-saturation engagement capability. Land-based ADS don't have that capability, mostly because the sensor suite required to achieve that capability has huge power requirements that are difficult to be satisfied by truck-based generators currently in use. It's also stupidly expensive to equip an air-defence unit with quad active phased arrays.

Regardless where the Tombstone phase array faces --- its not fully rotating, it turns and faces the targets --- this ship has full 360 coverage thanks to all the other radars you see up high. They cue the phase array towards the target or targets for engagement, where the array can concurrently engage up to six targets or even up to 12. Does this qualify as Aegis like?

No, see my reasoning for land-based ADS and apply it to 051Cs.

 

[Tam]

A key characteristic of Aegis not possessed by its predecessors and land-based counterparts is simultaneous all-aspect long-range anti-saturation engagement capability. Land-based ADS don't have that capability, mostly because the sensor suite required to achieve that capability has huge power requirements that are difficult to be satisfied by truck-based generators currently in use. It's also stupidly expensive to equip an air-defence unit with quad active phased arrays.

It does not have fully anti-saturation capability. Each AB only has three mechanical target illumination radars, which is actually one less of a Type 054A. While the AB can send instructions to multiple missiles launched in the air, to actually hit a target, each target illuminator must be shining on the target for the SARH missiles to home in on the reflections. That is why its called SARH or Semi-Active Radar Homing.

No, see my reasoning for land-based ADS and apply it to 051Cs.

Land based ADS does have that capability, as you can see with the S-300/S-400 and PAC systems. Just for example, the radar systems used to support the SD-50 and LY-80 missiles can simultaneously engage up to 12 targets on a single panel. The advantage of having a phase array, or AESA, for the purpose of engagement and fire control, is that you can digitally form multiple beams to track and light up multiple targets at the same time, not like a mechanical illuminator, which essentially is a radar flashlight.

The problem with the current SPY-1 based AEGIS system, is that the phase array is an S band, mainly meant for search and tracking but not for target engagement. The SPY-1 has to cue mechanical illuminators called the SPG-62 towards those targets. Which is why the next generation has to be dual band, one S-band, and the other X-band, with the S-band doing search and the X-band doing fire control. Or like the case of the Europeans, eliminate the X-band altogether, using autonomous, self homing active missiles like the Aster.

Land based ADS has no problems because they generally have two or more trucks, each with an independent search radar, and a fire control radar.

 

[jobjed]

It does not have fully anti-saturation capability. Each AB only has three mechanical target illumination radars, which is actually one less of a Type 054A. While the AB can send instructions to multiple missiles launched in the air, to actually hit a target, each target illuminator must be shining on the target for the SARH missiles to home in on the reflections. That is why its called SARH or Semi-Active Radar Homing.

Only the last ten seconds or so requires illumination. Furthermore, the illumination beam can illuminate multiple targets as long as they're close to each other. Unless >3 missiles arrive from all directions literally within seconds of each other, Aegis can handle it. That being said, it is a potential vulnerability. However, especially for its time, Aegis was revolutionary and can still hold its own against 21st century contemporaries.

Land based ADS does have that capability, as you can see with the S-300/S-400 and PAC systems. Just for example, the radar systems used to support the SD-50 and LY-80 missiles can simultaneously engage up to 12 targets on a single panel. The advantage of having a phase array, or AESA, for the purpose of engagement and fire control, is that you can digitally form multiple beams to track and light up multiple targets at the same time, not like a mechanical illuminator, which essentially is a radar flashlight.

Land based ADS has no problems because they generally have two or more trucks, each with an independent search radar, and a fire control radar.

Most land-based systems don't have four search and track arrays for simultaneous all-aspect engagement. They have one that they orient to engage targets from a particular direction, just like the 051C.

 

[Tam]

Only the last ten seconds or so requires illumination. Furthermore, the illumination beam can illuminate multiple targets as long as they're close to each other. Unless >3 missiles arrive from all directions literally within seconds of each other, Aegis can handle it. That being said, it is a potential vulnerability. However, especially for its time, Aegis was revolutionary and can still hold its own against 21st century contemporaries.

That is assuming they are close to each other but they are not? Also to target the next target you are also dependent on the speed of the mechanical slewing of the antenna, which an electronically formed beam would do it instantly.

Superstructure mounted systems also have another problem because they are lower on the radar horizon, and the ideal place to spot a sea skimming missile is to put it on top of as high a mast as possible, so it can peer down the radar horizon as early and as far as it can. (I am not going to explain curved Earth here). That's why SAMPSON looks the way it is, as well as other radars like Kronos and Herakles. This is also why superstructure mounted radars are supported with an secondary search radar on top of the mast to assist in the search down the horizon. You can see why the Type 052C/D has that bulb on top of the mast there.

Most land-based systems don't have four search and track arrays for simultaneous all-aspect engagement. They have one that they orient to engage targets from a particular direction, just like the 051C.

But they do turn around. Search radars do rotate 360 degrees and they will cue the separate fire control radars --- which they can be multiple copies thereof, all in separate trucks. You are not limited to just four radars.

I can have one search radar for example, in one truck, serving up to 10 trucks each with its own fire control radar. Land based ADS have much more modularity than a ship based system.

 

[jobjed]

But they do turn around. Search radars do rotate 360 degrees and they will cue the separate fire control radars --- which they can be multiple copies thereof, all in separate trucks. You are not limited to just four radars.

I can have one search radar for example, in one truck, serving up to 10 trucks each with its own fire control radar. Land based ADS has much more modularity than a ship based system.

They are not Aegis-type because they have to physically turn. Type 346 is Aegis-type because it can do it near instantaneously because there are four arrays providing constant all-aspect tracking. It's that simple.

You fire 3 missiles at a Type 051C simultaneously with 120 degrees azimuth between them and you got a sunk 051C. You do that to a 052D/Daring/Aegis/Aegis-like and you got three successful interceptions.