Export potential Type 45 v Arleigh Burke's?

[Big-E]

The PLAN doesn't have Aegis. What they have is a PAR system which the general public are calling Aegis as they have no idea what they're talking about.

It would be just as incorrect to say that they have PAAMs - which is also based around an Aegis concept.

In all of the excited conversation that occurs around this issue, there is the basic fundamental issue that nothing in the PLANs PAR deployed systems do they demonstrate CEC capability etc....

eg, the Singaporeans and the Israelis have developed PAR systems - and yet nobody refers to them as "Aegis".

Its an unfortunate description that continues to get currency because no one is correcting the error. It is however a gross error of description.

How do you know what she can do? Just b/c we look at photos doesn't mean we can accurately predict her capabilities. We have yet to go inside her CIC and don't know the software of the system. At this point these statements are just premature.

 

[gf0012-aust]

How do you know what she can do? Just b/c we look at photos doesn't mean we can accurately predict her capabilities. We have yet to go inside her CIC and don't know the software of the system. At this point these statements are just premature.

You've lost me a bit, what bit of my response are you talking about? If its the PLAN, then I'm basing comments based around various people sources I deal with. If its re the Singaporeans and/or the Israelis, then we do have some solid discussion on it.

In fact we do know that for approx 6 months the PLAN was filling those array panels with concrete - just like the early russian derivatives of PAR when they were trying to sort them out.

Senior people within the PLAN have also been at pains to point out that "its like Aegis".

The grandaddy of Aegis was circa 1965 on a deployed vessel - so its not as if other countries haven't had time to try and come up with a derivative of their own.

I'm also basing my opininion on the fact that very recently I worked in an area that dealt with milspec cabling for testing - and we know the quality of PLAN interconnects and cables, Just on issues of reflection they were appalling. If you used those harnesses for a sophisticated C4I system then the results would be all over the shop.

 

[Big-E]

In fact we do know that for approx 6 months the PLAN was filling those array panels with concrete - just like the early russian derivatives of PAR when they were trying to sort them out.

Senior people within the PLAN have also been at pains to point out that "its like Aegis".

I'm also basing my opininion on the fact that very recently I worked in an area that dealt with milspec cabling for testing - and we know the quality of PLAN interconnects and cables, Just on issues of reflection they were appalling. If you used those harnesses for a sophisticated C4I system then the results would be all over the shop.

Is your conclusion that PLANs attempts will go the way of the Russian Gorshkov phased array radar?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Is your conclusion that PLANs attempts will go the way of the Russian Gorshkov phased array radar?

In short - no. I think they'll go to an Israeli hybrid. If you look at all of chinas platform development in EW or Weaps, they basically go with an early russian design, improve it and then look for external improvements. you can see that in their design philosophy for EW/AW and their "5n" series vessels.

they've already migrated away from the russian philosophy of designing each warship to be a mini arsenal ship - and they've moved away from ad-hoc designs where PLS systems dominate due to poor design briefs.

I'm more interested to see whether they build their own Sovremeny class vessel - as that will show where their design philosophies really are influenced.

I'd almost argue that they've designed the "5n's" around UK/French/Israeli solutions with a US weapons philosophy (VLS) and a Russian emphasis (lots of VLS ie, more than a western equiv in launcher count on equiv sized vessel)

all IMHO though.

 

[aaaditya]

In short - no. I think they'll go to an Israeli hybrid. If you look at all of chinas platform development in EW or Weaps, they basically go with an early russian design, improve it and then look for external improvements. you can see that in their design philosophy for EW/AW and their "5n" series vessels.

they've already migrated away from the russian philosophy of designing each warship to be a mini arsenal ship - and they've moved away from ad-hoc designs where PLS systems dominate due to poor design briefs.

I'm more interested to see whether they build their own Sovremeny class vessel - as that will show where their design philosophies really are influenced.

I'd almost argue that they've designed the "5n's" around UK/French/Israeli solutions with a US weapons philosophy (VLS) and a Russian emphasis (lots of VLS ie, more than a western equiv in launcher count on equiv sized vessel)

all IMHO though.

but isnt there a eu ban on sale advanced defence technology to china.besides iam sure that due to their close relationship with usa ,israel will not sell any advanced defence technology to china,particularly after the phalcon fiasco,also iam sure if they supply any modern ew system to china,in the event of a war between usa and china ,israel will definitely give clasified information about the system sold to china to enable usa to successfully jam them.

 

[gf0012-aust]

but isnt there a eu ban on sale advanced defence technology to china.besides iam sure that due to their close relationship with usa ,israel will not sell any advanced defence technology to china,particularly after the phalcon fiasco,also iam sure if they supply any modern ew system to china,in the event of a war between usa and china ,israel will definitely give clasified information about the system sold to china to enable usa to successfully jam them.

the EU ban is a joke. Its been circumvented so many times by COTs solutions and agricultural clauses that it only keeps out overt sales.

Israels designs are already apparent in the early AWACs, UAV's and the initial support for missile designs.

you've obviously missed the newsflash earlier this year when Israel was locked out of some development work and technology briefings due to concerns about their security and their relationship with china.

 

[Big-E]

besides iam sure that due to their close relationship with usa ,israel will not sell any advanced defence technology to china

Are you serious???

 

[contedicavour]

Chinese DDGs

Even when the Chinese will come up with a functioning planar array radar, what about the missiles on board ? They have copies of shortrange French crotale, their Sovremenny have non-VL SA-N-7 and 17 with max range around 35km... not comparable to SM-2s or Aster-30s.

cheers

 

[Big-E]

Even when the Chinese will come up with a functioning planar array radar, what about the missiles on board ? They have copies of shortrange French crotale, their Sovremenny have non-VL SA-N-7 and 17 with max range around 35km... not comparable to SM-2s or Aster-30s.

cheers

They are not SA-N-7s or the crotale copies. They are their version of the much longer range SA-N-6 Grumble (S-300) 90km+.

 

[contedicavour]

They are not SA-N-7s or the crotale copies. They are their version of the much longer range SA-N-6 Grumble (S-300) 90km+.

I wasn't aware the latest DDGs had Grumble missiles aboard !!
Now that's starting to be a problem...
How many DDGs (-52C I guess) are there with Grumble confirmed aboard ?

cheers

 

[Big-E]

I wasn't aware the latest DDGs had Grumble missiles aboard !!
Now that's starting to be a problem...
How many DDGs (-52C I guess) are there with Grumble confirmed aboard ?

cheers

We can't confirm it, but the launch cells match the size of a Russian Grumble so it just goes to figure.

 

[HK_Thoughtful]

Okay...well I have a question, a bit off topic but along the same lines. Concerning the export versions of the Aegis Combat System, who do the exports compare with those systems found on current USN destroyers...I mean I know they are down-graded packages but does anyone know by what degree? Or is this a something that can't be revealed?

 

[Big-E]

Okay...well I have a question, a bit off topic but along the same lines. Concerning the export versions of the Aegis Combat System, who do the exports compare with those systems found on current USN destroyers...I mean I know they are down-graded packages but does anyone know by what degree? Or is this a something that can't be revealed?

What export versions?

 

[contedicavour]

Okay...well I have a question, a bit off topic but along the same lines. Concerning the export versions of the Aegis Combat System, who do the exports compare with those systems found on current USN destroyers...I mean I know they are down-graded packages but does anyone know by what degree? Or is this a something that can't be revealed?

Good question... I've seen scaled down versions such as the SPY-1F for the new Spanish and Norwegian frigates, but the fact that they've been scaled down is just a consequence of the lower size/tonnage of these frigates vs the much larger Burke or Ticonderoga. To what extent this lowers the 300-mile range of the AEGIS system on the USN I'm not sure... I'll try to find out.

cheers

 

[RA1911]

Good question... I've seen scaled down versions such as the SPY-1F for the new Spanish and Norwegian frigates, but the fact that they've been scaled down is just a consequence of the lower size/tonnage of these frigates vs the much larger Burke or Ticonderoga. To what extent this lowers the 300-mile range of the AEGIS system on the USN I'm not sure... I'll try to find out.

cheers

According to the official pages of the Norwegian armed forces its range is 200 nautical miles.
Ref. in norwegian: http://www.mil.no/fregatter/start/fakta/sensorer/

In other news, ship nr.3 of a total of 5 was set afloat a couple of days ago (April 28th).

 

[contedicavour]

According to the official pages of the Norwegian armed forces its range is 200 nautical miles.
Ref. in norwegian: http://www.mil.no/fregatter/start/fakta/sensorer/

In other news, ship nr.3 of a total of 5 was set afloat a couple of days ago (April 28th).

Ah-ha there we have the data, thanks RA1911
Does your country's navy plan to include SM-2 one day in the Nansen's VLS or will it remain with ESSM only ?

cheers

 

[RA1911]

Ah-ha there we have the data, thanks RA1911
Does your country's navy plan to include SM-2 one day in the Nansen's VLS or will it remain with ESSM only ?

cheers

As far as I know there are no current plans for doing this, so I wouldn't hold my breath

 

[HK_Thoughtful]

Alright--Thanks for the reply and the help and when I said export versions of the Aegis, I meant the versions used by navies other than the USN. Sorry for the mix-up.

 

[Big-E]

Wow, that frigate is going to be a nightmare to run. 50 officers to 30 sailors with a bunch of contractors running around telling the pros their not doing their jobs properly. I think they need to rethink the manning requirements of these vessles or nothing will get done.:grab

 

[Grand Danois]

Wow, that frigate is going to be a nightmare to run. 50 officers to 30 sailors with a bunch of contractors running around telling the pros their not doing their jobs properly. I think they need to rethink the manning requirements of these vessles or nothing will get done.:grab

The crews of the new ships will be made up of 120 personnel in total, 50 of which will be officers, 40 contracted personnel and 30 conscripted sailors. The vessels will have room for 146 people on board.

This is a translation error of the webpage. "Contracted" refers to professional military personnel as opposed to conscripts.

Cheers