Aegis and Dreadnaught

In 1905, the British commisioned HMS Dreadnaught, a ship so revolutionary that it all subsequent ships of its type were called Dreadnaughts and those before it Pre-Dreadnaughts.

In the modern era, USN commisioned the USS Ticonderoga with the Aegis weapon system. This system also revolutionized surface warfare that a phased array radar coupled with its associated weapon suite were called "Aegis Type" warships, even though they do not have the Aegis system. (See 052C destroyers)

My question is: Is Aegis the modern equivalent of Dreadnaught in todays naval reality?

I think this question involves quite a bit of personal opinion.

Personally I don't think Aegis is the modern equivlant of Dreadnaught. Aegis is a battle managment system where the Dreadnaught is a shipclass.

The mordern equivlant of Dreadnaught would be the Carrier Battle Group which is able to donimate the sea and carry out the power projection need of a country.

Aegis equivlant of the Dreadnaught Era would be standardized large caliber main guns and centrally directed battery firing system. Having same caliber guns and centrally directly firing improve accuarcy and effectiveness of the battleship, just like the Ageis combat system today.

Dreadnaught = A battleship with uniform large caliber guns. In that era, this was the most efficient for a surface vessel to put ordinance on target. It made targeting simplier and the ship itself more powerful.

In today's era, radar, communication, missiles, and the computers that connect the three are the most efficient way for a surface vessel to put ordinance on target, well on many targets. The Aegis system was the first to do it seemlessly.

I seem to recall many news papers having the headline "China commisioned "Aegis type" destroyer", regarding teeh 052C.

In purely technological terms Aegis system is somewhat equalent to Dreathnoughs in some extent. One major difference is that unlike the british warship back in the early 20th century, Aegis didn't cause a naval race. In fact it took considerably long period of time before any competiting systems emerged (the European PAAMS and this new chinese/ukrainian system). Ofcourse this is more down to political factors but still it didn't completely reformed the naval league.

Aircraft carriers and missiles (both SAMs and SSMs) where more like the dreadnoughs when they first appeared as they really made everything else obsolent

My question is: Is Aegis the modern equivalent of Dreadnaught in todays naval reality?

Click to expand...

No. Why?;

The first Aegis cruiser USS Ticoderoga (CG-47) was comissioned January 22, 1983. It served the USN until September 30, 2004. To this date no navy has completely duplicated the Aegis system. Some nations claim to have an Aegis like system. But truely no nation has the true Aegis system like employed by the USN. What the USN Aegis system has done has caused a wratchting up of development of like systems.

The Aegis system is so redundant and robust that in the weeks and months after 9/11/2001 the US employed Aegis equipped ships on both coast of the US for air defense.

Aegis greatest asset is it interconectivity with all the ships that have the system.

We need Sea Dog back in this forum. He is really versed on the Aegis system. As he served in a "Surface Warfare" in CIC on a Aegis ship(s).

IMO the "aegis" system is just one step in the evolution of ship-based battle management system.

For example, the ship-based missiles went from its early days (Talos, Terrier, Sea Dart, etc) of large missiles fired from single or twin arm launchers, or smaller missiles on box launchers, to the present-day VLS system. The VLS system is better than the old twin-arm launchers w/under deck magazine and reloader, but it can only be considered an "improvement" and not the defining moment when SAMs were first installed on ships, and ships went from gunboats to missile cruisers.

adeptitus said:

IMO the "aegis" system is just one step in the evolution of ship-based battle management system.

For example, the ship-based missiles went from its early days (Talos, Terrier, Sea Dart, etc) of large missiles fired from single or twin arm launchers, or smaller missiles on box launchers, to the present-day VLS system. The VLS system is better than the old twin-arm launchers w/under deck magazine and reloader, but it can only be considered an "improvement" and not the defining moment when SAMs were first installed on ships, and ships went from gunboats to missile cruisers.

Click to expand...

So was the gun, from muzzle loading cannons to the 18.1 inchers of the Yamato.

HMS dreadnaught was the first ship to have a uniform batteries. Its main gun set up was far from perfect, but it was the first. That is why all battleships after it were called dreadnaughts and even super-dreadnaughts. Other navies had their own main gun set up but the basics were the same, a uniform battery.

The Aegis combat system was the first to seamlessly connect a phase array radar, computers, datalinks, and weapons system. The Europeans now have their own unique version called PAAMS. Layman people call it a European "Aegis System". Different weapons suite set up but the basics is the same, a combat system the seamless connect phase array radar with computers, datalinks, and weapons.

My point is, will surface combatants comissioned without an "Aegis type" - for lack of a better word" combat sytem will in the futer be called pre-Aegis and those with Aegis warships.

bd popeye said:

But truely no nation has the true Aegis system like employed by the USN.

Click to expand...

Minor point, but both the Japanese and the Spanish have purchased the AEGIS system from the US. The Kongo class DDG for the Japanese and the F100 Alvaro de Bazan class FFG for Spain.


Spanish F100 class FFG


Japanese Kongo Class DDG


The new Australian Hobart class area air defense destroyers will also be AEGIS, and like the Kongo class, an offshoot of the US Burke class.

IDonT said:

HMS dreadnaught was the first ship to have a uniform batteries.

Click to expand...

That makes the difference IMO. Dreadnaughts innovation was to unify the guns for a more effective use. AEGIS makes the opposite somehow, since it combines different systems.

From another point, if you just want to the point that a certain system making one innovation gives its name for the entire idea; well, then AEGIS may be really similar to Dreadnaught.
But I think it will not become that widely use. The term here exists as sensor fusion, IMO. But if someone just wants to state that a vessel has this capability in a brief, non "technological" manner, he/she will probably refer to it as (pre) AEGIS ship.

I think the difference is that AEGIS didn't just appear overnight as, it was a gradual development, whereas the Dreadnought class was a paradigm shift which changed things overnight. At least that's the popular history and it's not far off I think.

The F-117 might be the modern Dreadnought, though not in a purely naval regard.