PDA

View Full Version : Kidd Class vs Sovremmeney Class



BUFF
14 Aug 03,, 04:30
I was reading an interesting article about the KIDD class on FAS, I was wandering how it stacks up to the Sovremmeny Class?

I think Taiwan aquired the KIDDs, and the Chinese have a few Sovremmenys.

Bill
14 Aug 03,, 05:47
The Kidd(NTU) is a superior warship in nearly every possible way.

lurker
14 Aug 03,, 06:13
The Kidd(NTU) is a superior warship in nearly every possible way.

Except it's very dead against 8 Sunburns

bigross86
14 Aug 03,, 11:29
Can someone post the specs on both ships? I tried finding them online and couldn't

lurker
14 Aug 03,, 12:41
Can someone post the specs on both ships? I tried finding them online and couldn't

there is an info about Sovremenny (project 956) class:

Power plant: 2 turbines 50,000 hp each, two shafts
Length: 156.5 m
Beam: 17.2 m
Draft: 5.99 m

Displacement: standard - 6500 t, full - 7940 t, max - 8480 t.
Speed: max - 32.7 knots
Range: 1345 nm with max speed, 3920 nm with 18 knots, 4500 nm with 18 kn. and max fuel load

Armament:
2 x 2 - 130 mm multipurpose gun (type AK-130), 2000 shells
4 x 6 - 30 mm AA guns (type AK-630), 16000 shells

2 x 4 SS-N-22/Sunburn ("Moskit") missile launchers
2 x 1 AA SS-N-7/Gadfly missile ("Hurricane"/"Uyragan") launchers, 48 missiles

2 x 2 - 533 mm torpedo tubes
2 x 6 - anti-submarine rocket-propelled dc launchers (type RBU-1000), 48 dc

2 decoy dispensers with 200 rocket-propelled decoys

Aircraft:
1 Ka-27/Ka-28 or similar.

Combat systems:
Radar (Air search): Top Plate 3D, D/E-band
Radar (Surface search): 3 Palm Frond, I-band
Radar (Fire-control): 6 Front Dome, F-band (for SA-N-7 control); Kite Screach, H/I/K-band (for 130 mm gun control); 2 Bass Tilt, H/I-band (for 30 mm gun)
Weapons Control: Band Stand, datalink for SS-N-22; Bell Nest, 2 Light Bulb, and 2 Tee Pump datalinks
Sonars: Bull Horn ("Platina" or "Platina-S") and Whale Tongue, hull-mounted, active search and attack, medium frequency

http://maniac.deeptown.org/images/sovr.jpg

bigross86
14 Aug 03,, 12:48
Thankx. do you know where I can find that stuff about the Kidd?

lurker
14 Aug 03,, 12:56
here for example http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ddg-993.htm

bigross86
14 Aug 03,, 12:58
Thankx dude. Appreciate it.

lurker
14 Aug 03,, 13:40
Thankx dude. Appreciate it.

np :D

ChrisF202
14 Aug 03,, 13:44
There kinda old right?

lurker
14 Aug 03,, 13:57
There kinda old right?

Which ones? Chineese ships are very new. Taiwaneese Kidd's - I don't know

bigross86
14 Aug 03,, 14:33
According to that Link u sent me before, the Kidd's were built before/during the Iranian revolution in 1979

lurker
14 Aug 03,, 14:49
According to that Link u sent me before, the Kidd's were built before/during the Iranian revolution in 1979

Oh, I see. I thought that they will be buying a newly built ones or something.

After your post I've found that they are buying Kidd, Callaghan, Scott and Chandler.

Those are very old. Maybe not very, but old.

bigross86
14 Aug 03,, 15:07
According to FAS, they have all been decommissioned already.

Bill
14 Aug 03,, 17:51
The Kidd's were designed as multirole warships and have MUCH better AAW capability than the Sovremney after the NTU update.

Given the Kidd's capacity of 68 SM-2MR(70 mile range) missiles, and inner defenses of 2 Phalanx and 5" guns, a Kidd is far more likely to survive an attack against 8 Sunburns than a Sovremney is against 68 SM-2MR's and 8 Harpoons...

Kidd has vastly better ECM/ECCM and much, much better sonar.

Even today Kidd's are among the most powerful warships afloat. The Chinese have no counter for them in the Strait.

bigross86
14 Aug 03,, 17:52
I read somewhere that the Kidd can have it's AAM's controlled by Aegis ships. Is this true?

Stinger
14 Aug 03,, 17:54
I read somewhere that the Kidd can have it's AAM's controlled by Aegis ships. Is this true?

They can be slaved to an AEGIS Controller if I remember corretcly, its part of the data link a CVBG uses.

bigross86
14 Aug 03,, 17:56
Can it work the other way around? What about the CVN's RIM-7's? Can they be controlled by an AEGIS ship?

Stinger
14 Aug 03,, 18:02
Can it work the other way around? What about the CVN's RIM-7's? Can they be controlled by an AEGIS ship?

I think AEGIS can also recieve the all the data from an escorts Radars and such, but the assigned AEGIS ship is the brain of the system. An Arliegh Burke Could take over for a crippled Tico, but standard frigate could not. The RIM-7's I think are a seperat close in defense system, like CWIS.

bigross86
14 Aug 03,, 18:09
Is the range of the RIM-7 the same as the AIM-7?

lurker
14 Aug 03,, 18:17
The Kidd's were designed as multirole warships and have MUCH better AAW capability than the Sovremney after the NTU update.

Given the Kidd's capacity of 68 SM-2MR(70 mile range) missiles, and inner defenses of 2 Phalanx and 5" guns, a Kidd is far more likely to survive an attack against 8 Sunburns than a Sovremney is against 68 SM-2MR's and 8 Harpoons...

Kidd has vastly better ECM/ECCM and much, much better sonar.

Even today Kidd's are among the most powerful warships afloat. The Chinese have no counter for them in the Strait.

Ok, let see numbers.

The main idea behind Sunburn - very fast sea-skimmer (2.5M speed cruise, 2.8 attack).

Since it's skimming, i.e. flying just over the sea level - I doubt that it is possible to detect it at ranges over 10 n. miles (fas.org states that as MAX range of the AN/SPQ-9B radar).

How many seconds is left before missiles hit the target? (All numbers are for the cruising speed, not attack) The answer is 21-22 seconds(!!!). In that time - Kidd sould determine it as hostile, turn it's launchers into the incoming missiles direction and fire.

Remembering that SM2 is semi-acrive, and I think i've read something that system cannot attack more tha 4 targets simultaneously.

Even with 75% hit probability - 5 from 8 missiles salvo will survive till second SM2 launch (which will have only 10 seconds or less to intercept before Sunburns hit).

After that there is only 2 Phalanx left for poin-blank defence... And how many seconds will missiles be in range of those? Not more than 4-5 seconds(!!!).

At least Sovremenny have 4 30mm guns instead of just 2 (20 mm)... And Harpoons are much slower than Sunburns.

bigross86
14 Aug 03,, 18:21
Yeah, but harpoons have the pop-up maneuver right before they attack, and there's almost always an AWACS up that will detect the missiles from way beyond 10 nm, and in that time until the Kidd detects them they can already swivel the launchers and light everything up.

lurker
14 Aug 03,, 18:34
Yeah, but harpoons have the pop-up maneuver right before they attack, and there's almost always an AWACS up that will detect the missiles from way beyond 10 nm, and in that time until the Kidd detects them they can already swivel the launchers and light everything up.

Well... I seriously doubt it, but nothing can prove you wrong.
Looking at just 2 ships without the whole fleet is kind of meaningless.

Many things will play their part, including battle environment and training. And there is no navy in the world that is yet trained to intercept multiple fast sea-skimmers.

btw, latest versions of the Harpoon doesn't do a pop-up anymore.

p.s. Just remembering that and the "Stark" incident - most probably "Kidd" will not survive even a single hit of the 2-3 tonn missile.

bigross86
14 Aug 03,, 18:37
Can missiles from a plane/boat be slaved to an AWACS' control?

Bill
14 Aug 03,, 23:28
The latest Aegis system, the Mk7 Baseline 7B can control ALL integrated fleet defenses.

That's guns, missiles, and harsh language(jamming).

Bill
14 Aug 03,, 23:29
"Is the range of the RIM-7 the same as the AIM-7?"
No, about 1/3 the range of AIM-7.

RIM-7 NSSMS is being withdrawn from USN Service and being replaced with the RIM-162 ESSM, with a range of about 30 miles.

Bill
14 Aug 03,, 23:42
"Ok, let see numbers."

Lets.

"The main idea behind Sunburn - very fast sea-skimmer (2.5M speed cruise, 2.8 attack)."

Main idea behind SM-2, even FASTER. Try Mach 3.5 to 70 nautical miles.

"Since it's skimming, i.e. flying just over the sea level - I doubt that it is possible to detect it at ranges over 10 n. miles (fas.org states that as MAX range of the AN/SPQ-9B radar)."

Radar/Visual horizon for an object AT sea level is 22 nautical miles. Care to guess again???

The electronic detection range for a MASSIVE missile like Sunburn, even on the deck, will be about 25-30 miles.

"How many seconds is left before missiles hit the target? (All numbers are for the cruising speed, not attack) The answer is 21-22 seconds(!!!). In that time - Kidd sould determine it as hostile, turn it's launchers into the incoming missiles direction and fire. "

Takes 8 seconds for a Kidd to load it's rails, swivel it's launchers, and fire 4 missiles. That means in your 22 second time frame the Kidd can launch 10 SM-2's at the incoming Sunburns(That's using your incorrect detection range of 10 miles. At 22 miles(FLIR detection range), the Kidd would have 45 seconds or more to react and intercept.

"Remembering that SM2 is semi-acrive, and I think i've read something that system cannot attack more tha 4 targets simultaneously. "

Yup, 4 illuminators- 4 targets, 2 missiles each.

"Even with 75% hit probability - 5 from 8 missiles salvo will survive till second SM2 launch (which will have only 10 seconds or less to intercept before Sunburns hit). "

I'd figure of the 10 SM-2's the kidd could salvo in 22 seconds, that half would score hits. That leaves three Sunburns to be dealt with via Phalanx(two mounts), the 5" guns, and ECM(why does EVERYONE forget ECM?)- this is again using your incorrect detection threshold of 10 miles.

"After that there is only 2 Phalanx left for poin-blank defence... And how many seconds will missiles be in range of those? Not more than 4-5 seconds(!!!). "

Takes six seconds start to finish for a Phalanx intercept. Both mounts can track and engage independent of one another.

"At least Sovremenny have 4 30mm guns instead of just 2 (20 mm)... And Harpoons are much slower than Sunburns."

Only two of the Sov's AK-130 mounts can be brought to bear on one axis, so it's a wash.

Harpoon is certainly much slower, but it's also got a MUCH lower IR signiture and RCS.

The Kidd's main antiship killing mechanism is it's SM-2's.

A Sovremney has zero capability to succesfully engage a tight packed salvo of 2x4 waves of Mach 3.5 SM-2's.
Even if it could, the Kidd can just fire 8 more. :)

The Harpoons would be used to finish it's opponent after the Sovremney was mission killed with the SM-2's first.

Bill
14 Aug 03,, 23:47
"And there is no navy in the world that is yet trained to intercept multiple fast sea-skimmers."

Ummm, wrong. The Missile the USN uses to practice it's fleet AAW is even faster than the Sunburn...much faster.

That's the missile that gives the USN fits(and only in certain scenarios where incoming vampire detection time is very small).

"btw, latest versions of the Harpoon doesn't do a pop-up anymore."

The latest Harpoon has numerous terminal manuevers to choose from. One of them is the pop-up.

lurker
15 Aug 03,, 00:17
Only two of the Sov's AK-130 mounts can be brought to bear on one axis, so it's a wash.


Only 2 from any direction. We can say the same about "Kidds" Phalanxes, but it leaves only one able to shoot on some angles (Namely - wide angles close to bow or stern :)).

Independent tracking means that Phalanxes can lose time on the same missile, leaving others untouched. :)



Harpoon is certainly much slower, but it's also got a MUCH lower IR signiture and RCS.

The Kidd's main antiship killing mechanism is it's SM-2's.


Which is kind of short-legged, and using only fragmentation blast warheads (means - easily defeated by any kind of armouring :)).


A Sovremney has zero capability to succesfully engage a tight packed salvo of 2x4 waves of Mach 3.5 SM-2's.
Even if it could, the Kidd can just fire 8 more. :)


Except 2 double barrel 130mm and 30mm guns all fully auhtomated and can shoot anything moving on speeds up to 830 meters per second.
Moreover they are coordinated, and can engade different targets.

And since "Standards" (as any of the solid-fuel missiles) are burning their engines only when starting their trajectory - their speed will be lower at the end.

Russian SA-N-7 Gadly are similar to Standard missiles an many ways, which is stated by many sources, including fas.org and others.

p.s SM2 max speed is 3+M which is not dramatically faster than 2.8M Sunburn attack speed.

p.p.s. Which "missile" is US Fleet using to train against fast moving targets? Care to provide a name? "much faster" is more suitable for fantasy books, like Clancy's, but it's nowhere near the facts.

Bill
15 Aug 03,, 00:37
"Only 2 from any direction. We can say the same about "Kidds" Phalanxes, but it leaves only one able to shoot on some angles (Namely - wide angles close to bow or stern )."

The Kidd's Phalanxes are arrayed so that by turning broadside to the threat both mounts are unmasked. So either way, both ships can only attack with two CIWS mounts into one axis.

"Independent tracking means that Phalanxes can lose time on the same missile, leaving others untouched. "

Independent tracking means that's exactly what they don't do. If one Phalanx is targeting a missile, and more threats are inbound, the second Phalanx will automaticly slew to another target.

"Which is kind of short-legged(SM-2), and using only fragmentation blast warheads (means - easily defeated by any kind of armouring )."

70 miles is just as long as the range of the Harpoon, and there aren't any warships with any form of serious armor anymore. In any case, even if they were, the SM-2 is used to blow apart the opposing ship's radars, SAM mounts, CIWS mounts, etc.

They won't sink it, but they will mission kill it easily.



"Except 2 double barrel 130mm and 30mm guns all fully auhtomated and can shoot anything moving on speeds up to 830 meters per second.
Moreover they are coordinated, and can engade different targets. "

Only two can engage at once, and the will have a maximum engagement window of about 3-4 seconds to hit 4 missiles. You like those odds?

"And since "Standards" (as any of the solid-fuel missiles) are burning their engines only when starting their trajectory - their speed will be lower at the end."

SM-2 flies a ballistic trajectory in SSM mode. This allows it to maintain an attack velocity of about 1800+ Knots(Mach 3.5).

"Russian SA-N-7 Gadly are similar to Standard missiles an many ways, which is stated by many sources, including fas.org and others. "

Except that they have very short range, are slower, and use unproven Russian seekers. Besides that, sure...they're the same.

"p.s SM2 max speed is 3+M which is not dramatically faster than 2.8M Sunburn attack speed."

Mach 3.5 is terminal attack speed for SM-2 in SSM mode. That's a lot faster than Mach 2.8

"p.p.s. Which "missile" is US Fleet using to train against fast moving targets? Care to provide a name? "much faster" is more suitable for fantasy books, like Clancy's, but it's nowhere near the facts."

The MA-31, to be replaced with the MQM-8G(ER) Vandal/Sea Snake SST target drone.

Rumored top speed for the Vandal is Mach 4.5+

That 'much faster' enough for you?

Bill
15 Aug 03,, 00:38
BTW, you overlooked jamming again.

Kidd's have tremendously powerful multi-band jammers.

lurker
15 Aug 03,, 00:41
BTW, you overlooked jamming again.

Kidd's have tremendously powerful multi-band jammers.

And Sunburns are practically jammer-proof. The same thechnology that is been used in AEGIS/Standard - S-300 - Granit/Sunburn - have been around for years.

lurker
15 Aug 03,, 00:50
Btw, MA-31 is modified version of the old russian X-31 missile :D :D :D
I'ts at least 5 times lighter than Sunburn and slower.

There is at least 3 versions newer than that (and China bought a license on X-31P (AS-17 Krypton D).

p.s. I was pointing at SM2 ballistic trajectory with the speeds - means missile have max speed only at the beginning. I'ts never constant. Just look at any gun projectile ballistics.

Besides, ballistic trajectories means that missiles will attack sea-skimmers from above. And if target is heavily maneuvering - any jiggle in contols will mean miss.

Bill
15 Aug 03,, 04:42
"Btw, MA-31 is modified version of the old russian X-31 missile
I'ts at least 5 times lighter than Sunburn and slower."

I know, we don't use it anymore. We use the Vandal. The MA-31 is faster than Sunburn though, Mach 3.5

"p.s. I was pointing at SM2 ballistic trajectory with the speeds - means missile have max speed only at the beginning. I'ts never constant. Just look at any gun projectile ballistics. "

No, missiles do not have most speed at the beginning. They have to accelerate first. Missiles have the absolute most speed the instant the booster burns out. However, flying on a ballistic trajectory, a missile(or any object) begins to reaccelerate on it's descent phase, all the way down until it acheieves it's terminal velocity.

Flying such a profile SM-2MR Block IIIA(the exact model used by the Kidd) has a terminal attack velocity of Mach 3.5
This speed will of course be reduced if the missile has to manuever on it's descent phase, but against a slow moving target like a ship it will be quite minimal.

"Besides, ballistic trajectories means that missiles will attack sea-skimmers from above."

The ballistic profile is only executed for extreme long range anti-aircraft or antiship strikes. For closer ranges it flies a semi-ballistic trajectory and begins to home directly on the target when it reaches the zenith of it's trajectory. This is done to greatly increase range.

"And if target is heavily maneuvering - any jiggle in contols will mean miss. "

Ho hum. You do realize it's EASIER to target an object on the deck when attacking from above because you only need to compute a 2 dimensional intercept, right?

BTW, SM-2 has a proximity fuze(actually it is a variable laser fuze with VT, Q, and D modes), so direct hits are not required against a missile or aircraft anyway. SM-2MR Block IIIA has a 165lb continuous rod blast/fragmentation warhead. More than enough to prox kill any missile it might encounter.

SM-2MR Block IIIB(The Aegis version), also adds a IR sensor for autonomous terminal homing, and has a full vectored thrust booster for extreme agility in close range point engagements.

SM-2ER Block IV retains the capability of SM-2MR Block IIIB, but extends range to 130 nautical miles with the use of a 2nd stage booster, and increases speed to Mach 3.75+(Some say Mach 4).

SM-3 is the next generation Standard, acting as a dedicated boost phase intercept ABM, and has a range of 160 miles(third stage booster), and a max flight speed of Mach 8.2 at altitude. At this time SM-3 has no antiaircraft capability.

Just figured i'd put all that info out there in case someone was interested.


"And Sunburns are practically jammer-proof. The same thechnology that is been used in AEGIS/Standard - S-300 - Granit/Sunburn - have been around for years."

LOL, and you know this HOW exactly? Might i point out that no Sunburn has ever been fired in anger, and therefore has not proven that claim whatsoever?

There is no such thing as jammer proof. Ask anyone who's ever ran up against an EA-6B....

Oh, and the russians have no comparable technology to Aegis. Sorry.

lurker
15 Aug 03,, 05:56
All the russian sources (which are much more informative btw) are stating speeds in around 2.5M for X-31. And MA-31 should have the same thing.

I don't think that Vandal is sea-skimming? At least Talos wasn't.

Btw, dont' you think that all the russian AAM systems haven't been tested against targets similar to MA-31 or beter? Since MA-31 is based on a missile comissioned 15 years ago (in 1988)?

(so much for "untested technology")


Oh, and the russians have no comparable technology to Aegis. Sorry.

Lol. Why do they need it? :)
Ever heard of S-300? Which can shot down even ballistic missiles? Capability that Aegis does not have?

Aegis maybe good, or was good. But on todays market it looks kind of rusty.

p.s. I'll look tech. details on jammer-proofing.

Stinger
15 Aug 03,, 13:26
Its ok Lurker, I understand.... sure everyone has these kinds of delusions.... just make sure you take you medication and listen to what ol' Doc Snipe has been saying....

bigross86
15 Aug 03,, 13:45
LOL! btw- whats the S-300? Snipe, do you think the Israeli Chetz (Arrow) could be implemented effectively on AEGIS warships?

lurker
15 Aug 03,, 14:22
Its ok Lurker, I understand.... sure everyone has these kinds of delusions.... just make sure you take you medication and listen to what ol' Doc Snipe has been saying....

rofl :D The same I can say about my opponent :D :D

Old cruise missiles, (with removed warhead) magically start to fly "faster, much faster", and so on...

I think that the most of that is propaganidstic crap, and have nothing to do with the real situation.

p.s. too much Clancy

lurker
15 Aug 03,, 14:27
LOL! btw- whats the S-300? Snipe, do you think the Israeli Chetz (Arrow) could be implemented effectively on AEGIS warships?

Here:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/s-300pmu.htm
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/s-300v.htm

It's the same system, installed mostly on cruisers (Kirov class, Slava class and others).

bigross86
15 Aug 03,, 14:37
Oh. The SA-10. I know that one. What about my Chetz question? Anyone have any answers?

Bill
16 Aug 03,, 01:53
"All the russian sources (which are much more informative btw) are stating speeds in around 2.5M for X-31. And MA-31 should have the same thing."

Sure, try these links...

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1999/news_release_991217n.htm

"The MA-31 target is capable of preprogrammed, sea-skimming and high altitude flight profiles at speeds up to mach 3.5."

http://www.softwar.net/kh31.html

"PAYLOAD - 100 KG. - 220 POUNDS
RANGE - 16 MILES LOW ALTITUDE SEA SKIMMER
DIAMETER - .36 METERS (1.2 FEET)
LENGTH - 4.7 METERS (15.4 FEET)
WEIGHT - 600 KG. (1,320 LB.)
ENGINE - KEROSENE RAMJET
GUIDANCE - ACTIVE/PASSIVE R/F SEEKER - ARM VERSION
SPEED - MACH 2.7 (1,785 KEAS OR 3,010 FPS) AT 30 FEET
MACH 3.5+ AT ALTITUDE"

http://www.aerotechnews.com/starc/1999/122399/Boeing_MA31.html

"is capable of preprogrammed, sea-skimming and high altitude flight profiles at speeds up to mach 3.5."

LOL, oops, eh?

"I don't think that Vandal is sea-skimming? At least Talos wasn't."

It is. Talos was a Ramjet powered SAM.

"Btw, dont' you think that all the russian AAM systems haven't been tested against targets similar to MA-31 or beter? Since MA-31 is based on a missile comissioned 15 years ago (in 1988)? "

No, they can't afford it. These tests cost millions of dollars per run. They've been tested, but to nowhere the same level of equivelant US systems. Most US systems have of course passed the umtimate 'test' on many occasions...War.

"(so much for "untested technology")"

Indeed.

Quote:
Oh, and the russians have no comparable technology to Aegis. Sorry.


"Lol. Why do they need it?
Ever heard of S-300? Which can shot down even ballistic missiles? Capability that Aegis does not have?"

SM-2ER Block IV and MR Block IIIA/B are all fully SRBM capable. ER Block IV is reported to be IRBM capable.

Obviously, SM-3 is ICBM capable.

So the SA-10 can shoot down an SRBM, so can lots of things. Aegis included.

"Aegis maybe good, or was good. But on todays market it looks kind of rusty."

Errrr, the latest Aegis can remote launch from any sensor in the fleet, can control all the weapons of the fleet, and coordinates all engagements to reach maximum efficiency. The Russians or Chinese have N O T H I N G comparable, get it?

LOL, you really are clueless, aren't ya?

"p.s. I'll look tech. details on jammer-proofing."

I can hardly wait... :-(

Bill
16 Aug 03,, 02:01
"It's the same system, installed mostly on cruisers (Kirov class, Slava class and others)."

No, it's not the same system. It's the same basic MISSILE operated from very DIFFERENT systems. :roll:

Bill
16 Aug 03,, 02:04
"rofl The same I can say about my opponent "

Sure, you can say it....you'd look like a fool, but you could say it.

"Old cruise missiles, (with removed warhead) magically start to fly "faster, much faster", and so on... "

Oh, you saw the three links i posted listing a Mach 3.5 speed, right?

LOL.

BTW genious, if you remove several hundred pounds(Warhead/fuze assys) of mass from a powered vehicle, what happens?

Oh, that's right....it's faster.

"I think that the most of that is propaganidstic crap, and have nothing to do with the real situation."

Probably because you can't admit US tech is far better than the Russians or Chinese.

"p.s. too much Clancy"

Too much Pravda.

lurker
16 Aug 03,, 02:46
Sure, try these links...

"The MA-31 target is capable of preprogrammed, sea-skimming and high altitude flight profiles at speeds up to mach 3.5."


Who needs unreal speeds on high altitude, since it's skimming? What it will do there? Count crows?

Sure, you look like a guy who may need that. :D



"I don't think that Vandal is sea-skimming? At least Talos wasn't."
It is. Talos was a Ramjet powered SAM.


rofl, sea skimming AA missile? To chase low profile flying crows, I presume? :D



No, they can't afford it. These tests cost millions of dollars per run. They've been tested, but to nowhere the same level of equivelant US systems. Most US systems have of course passed the umtimate 'test' on many occasions...War.


Sure they can't. Even before 1991 about 50% of WNP was spent on army.
But surely you know better.



Oh, and the russians have no comparable technology to Aegis. Sorry.

"Lol. Why do they need it?
Ever heard of S-300? Which can shot down even ballistic missiles? Capability that Aegis does not have?"

SM-2ER Block IV and MR Block IIIA/B are all fully SRBM capable. ER Block IV is reported to be IRBM capable.

Obviously, SM-3 is ICBM capable.

So the SA-10 can shoot down an SRBM, so can lots of things. Aegis included.


What SM3 missile? This SM3 missile?ttp://www.raytheon.com/feature/sm3/

"The Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) under development by Raytheon Company..."

There is no SM3 missile yet in the inventory.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/sm-2.htm
"On January 24, 1997, the Navy successfully demonstrated a Theater Ballistic Missile Defense capability when a ballistic missile target was shot from the sky for the first time using a new version of the Standard missile family."

Oh, really... from 1997

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/weapons/missiles/standard/standard.html

"The modified STANDARD Missile 2 Block IV (SM2 Blk IV) which destroyed the Lance TBM target this morning adds a state-of-the-art infrared seeker to the Navy's existing SM2 Block IV...

Surely you can count crows, but can you read?

SM3 is not yet there. SM2 block IV needed modifications to do that.
But surely it's IRBM capable 5 times out of 8.



"Aegis maybe good, or was good. But on todays market it looks kind of rusty."

Errrr, the latest Aegis can remote launch from any sensor in the fleet, can control all the weapons of the fleet, and coordinates all engagements to reach maximum efficiency. The Russians or Chinese have N O T H I N G comparable, get it?


Some systems can do more, some don't. S-300 system is modular AA defence (not, it's not a missile) it can use system-integrated radars, and provide tracking data to the weapons.
Radars can be anything from Mig-31 radars, AWACS planes and helos, to ship based or mobile land based.
The same with the weapons.

Can Aegis be easily integrated into the land-based defences?
Can it provide data to the land based SAM's?


LOL, you really are clueless, aren't ya?


Sure. And I can't count crows :D


"p.s. I'll look tech. details on jammer-proofing."

I can hardly wait... :-(
But surely you know how to pass a time.

Captain C
16 Aug 03,, 07:56
Let's clarify a few things:

1. The Kidd class will know where the Chinese ships are well before the Chinese ships will know they are there. The Kidd class radars are that much better, and that was with the radars they were equipped with when they were decommissioned. Since those radars were taken off and used on other ships, they will likely have much better when reinstalled. Let's not forget U.S. help in locating Chinese ships either. The electronics systems on these ships are only a small margin behind Aegis, in some scenarios, such as surface search, were better than early Aegis ships. While (I believe) only two Kidds were fitted with NTU at Decom time, you can bet your backside they will have that or better when they come back online.

2. In a wartime cruising situation, the Kidds will have missiles on the rails at all times. So we are talking four missiles already set to fire. You will have four more in a few seconds; I think 8 seconds is what they admit to, not what they will do it in……. The SM2 missiles only require terminal guidance for the last 4 seconds of flight time, so you can have many more than four missiles in the air at any given time. The SM1 missiles are the ones that require terminal guidance all the way from launch to the target….

3. I've never heard of a Russian missile that was hard to jam, when did that happen????? The ECM of the Kidd class will wreak havoc with the Sunburn undoubtedly, you also have chaff and Phalanx. Phalanx might get replaced with SeaRam which will greatly improve the chances of downing the Sunburn outside of the range where fragments of the missile could hurt the ship.

4. The Taiwanese have a rather nice antiship missile as well. This may used to supplement or replace the Harpoon. The HSIUNG FENG III is a supersonic ASM so the Chinese had better look out.

5. The reliability of the Kidd class equipment is much higher than anything Russian, which is in turn, much higher than anything run by the Chinese. The Taiwanese are professional sailors, not uneducated conscripts.

6. The Chinese only have two Souveremeny's currently and are looking to buy only two more as far as I know. The Taiwanese are guaranteed the four Kidds.

7. The Souveremeny has two one arm bandits for their main AAW and they are short ranged missiles. The Souveremeny is much more susceptible to be destroyed than the Kidd. Besides, aircraft or subs will probably kill the Souveremeny class ships before another ship does……

8. The latest and greatest SM2-ER missiles that are fired from the Mk 41 VLS are too long to fire from the Mk 26 launchers. They can only fire the SM2-MR with the 70 mile range….. Three times the range of the Soviet AAW missiles…..

These are just a few things off the top of my head. Maybe later I can do a more in depth analysis of all the threads..... BTW, the Kidds were only 15 years old at the time of Decommision. Lots of life left in them, lots of life!!!!

:S :ph34r

lurker
16 Aug 03,, 09:26
Let's clarify a few things:

Sure do

1. The Kidd class will know where the Chinese ships are well before the Chinese ships will know they are there. The Kidd class radars are that much better, and that was with the radars they were equipped with when they were decommissioned.

That is your personal beliefs.


3. I've never heard of a Russian missile that was hard to jam, when did that happen?????
When did anyone had any proof data on that?
Basically speaking active/passive homing on Sunburns means that in the case of really havy jamming - first missiles will home on jam.


4. The Taiwanese have a rather nice antiship missile as well. This may used to supplement or replace the Harpoon. The HSIUNG FENG III is a supersonic ASM so the Chinese had better look out.

I haven't seen any data on those. Can you post the data you have?


5. The reliability of the Kidd class equipment is much higher than anything Russian
And again this is just buble talk.

7. The Souveremeny has two one arm bandits for their main AAW and they are short ranged missiles. The Souveremeny is much more susceptible to be destroyed than the Kidd. Besides, aircraft or subs will probably kill the Souveremeny class ships before another ship does……

Range of the Sunburns are greater than anything that Kidd's have.
And anyway, ballistic nukes from chineese SSBN's will kill taiwaneese fleet long before any aircraft can be airborne. :N

(just trying to talk in your style)

:D

Bill
16 Aug 03,, 11:59
"That is your personal beliefs."

Actually, they would be his PROFESSIONAL BELIEFS.

Captain C was a sailor in the United States navy....he's been to sea on several cruises.

"When did anyone had any proof data on that?
Basically speaking active/passive homing on Sunburns means that in the case of really havy jamming - first missiles will home on jam."

"Home on Chaff" is not a very effective targeting method...

"And again this is just buble talk."

Um, no, that'd be professional analysis from a guy who's served.

"Range of the Sunburns are greater than anything that Kidd's have."

It's also greater than a Sov's ability to OTH target them. LOL, whoops...

"And anyway, ballistic nukes from chineese SSBN's will kill taiwaneese fleet long before any aircraft can be airborne."

No they won't. Taiwan is FAR inside the minimum range of an ICBM wrt to China. Besides, China won't be nuking anyone, they have no desire to glow in the dark themselves.

Oh, and one last thing....China has exactly ONE SSBN.

Bill
16 Aug 03,, 12:14
"Who needs unreal speeds on high altitude, since it's skimming? What it will do there? Count crows?"

Read the link i provided, it says what MA-31 will do on the deck.....Mach 2.7+

"rofl, sea skimming AA missile? To chase low profile flying crows, I presume?"

Um, what're you talking about? LOL, i doubt you know either.

"Sure they can't. Even before 1991 about 50% of WNP was spent on army.
But surely you know better."

Russians can't afford extensive testing anymore....not my fault, just a fact of life. They're broke.


"What SM3 missile? This SM3 missile?ttp://www.raytheon.com/feature/sm3/

There is no SM3 missile yet in the inventory."

SM-3 is scheduled to be in service by 2005-7. Even right now, today, the USN could deploy SM-3 in limited numbers in an emergency.

"The modified STANDARD Missile 2 Block IV (SM2 Blk IV) which destroyed the Lance TBM target this morning adds a state-of-the-art infrared seeker to the Navy's existing SM2 Block IV...

Surely you can count crows, but can you read? "

What ARE you talking about?

SM-2ER IV has been in limited service for close to a decade...

"SM3 is not yet there. SM2 block IV needed modifications to do that.
But surely it's IRBM capable 5 times out of 8."

SM-2ER Block IIIB also has the IR seeker and enhanced autopilot of the SM-2ER IV. Just like i told you. You don't pay much attention, eh?

SM-2MR Block IIIA(as used by kidd), lacks the IR seeker but is capable of intercepting an SRBM via the FCR. Hardly optomized for the role, but it is capable.

I said....

"Errrr, the latest Aegis can remote launch from any sensor in the fleet, can control all the weapons of the fleet, and coordinates all engagements to reach maximum efficiency. The Russians or Chinese have N O T H I N G comparable, get it?"

You said...

"Some systems can do more, some don't."

There is NO russian(or any other nation for that matter) system with the capability of the FCEC Aegis. You can pretend there is, fantasize there is, or just wish there is, but there's not.


"S-300 system is modular AA defence (not, it's not a missile)"

Um, yeah, it is. S-300PMU is the designation of the MISSILE SYSTEM, and no, it's not modular.

S-300PMU was the SA-10, S-300PMU1 was the SA-10B, and S-300PMU2 is the SA-10 Mod2(Still in prototype form).

"it can use system-integrated radars, and provide tracking data to the weapons."

ALL SARH missiles use system integrated radars and provide FCR data to the missiles.

"Radars can be anything from Mig-31 radars, AWACS planes and helos, to ship based or mobile land based.
The same with the weapons. "

Nope. There are only TWO radars that can control the SA-10 missile.

One is the naval Top Dome FCR, and the other is the land based Flap Lid FCR. ONLY SA-10 launch platforms have these radars.

"Can Aegis be easily integrated into the land-based defences?"

After the introduction of the Baseline7a FCEC Aegis in 2000 it gained that capability. So the answer is yes. Now the US Army is in the process of adding software that will further compliment that capability.

lurker
16 Aug 03,, 16:55
CapC's rank wasn't 'sailor' either...he was a USN weapons systems technician.

And what exactly was your specialty? If your background is in EW, why is it that you seem so unaware of how effective EW is???

Speciality is general. Anti-air defence.
Retired in rank of Maj Lutenant in 1993.
The Army of USSR, of course.

lurker
16 Aug 03,, 17:06
"Range of the Sunburns are greater than anything that Kidd's have."

It's also greater than a Sov's ability to OTH target them. LOL, whoops...


Not really. Before 1995 there was a Ka-25Ts AWACS helos in service, and now there is Ka-27RLD.
Sovremenny can carry both types, but Chinese simply doesn't have them.



No they won't. Taiwan is FAR inside the minimum range of an ICBM wrt to China. Besides, China won't be nuking anyone, they have no desire to glow in the dark themselves.


Depends on where chinese will be firing from. China have a long coast line.


Oh, and one last thing....China has exactly ONE SSBN.

Those reports were never confirmed.

Bill
16 Aug 03,, 17:27
"Not really. Before 1995 there was a Ka-25Ts AWACS helos in service, and now there is Ka-27RLD.
Sovremenny can carry both types, but Chinese simply doesn't have them."

China doesn't have them, and Russia doesn't embark them aboard Sov's.'

In other words, they don't have the capability because the neccesary aircraft is either not embarked by choice or neccesity.
Anyway you slice it, the Sov's organic OTH capability cannot take advantadge of Sunburn's maximum potential.

"Depends on where chinese will be firing from. China have a long coast line."

Even IF China could fire ICBM's at Taiwan, why would they? Those are for deterring the US/Russia, and the Chicoms have very few ICBM's in their inventory.

"Those reports were never confirmed."

They were never refuted either. For all any of us know, china has ONE SSBN, and it's got a US SSN on it's six at all times anyway.

lurker
16 Aug 03,, 17:33
Nope. There are only TWO radars that can control the SA-10 missile.

One is the naval Top Dome FCR, and the other is the land based Flap Lid FCR. ONLY SA-10 launch platforms have these radars.


Each standard command post of the S-300, index 96LE6 can control up to six systems. They can be S-300PMU, S-300PMU1, S-300PMU2, S-200DE or S-200VE.

Command post is intgrated with radar, so surely it's easy to be mistaken.

The same command post can be feeded from Su-27 or Mig-31 radars ("Universal-1E" system, if you are interested in indexes).

p.s. nm about "count crows" it's the same as "train spotting".
Furthermore i propose not to lower a level of discussion by focusing on personal attacks.

Bill
16 Aug 03,, 17:56
"Each standard command post of the S-300, index 96LE6 can control up to six systems. They can be S-300PMU, S-300PMU1, S-300PMU2, S-200DE or S-200VE.

Command post is intgrated with radar, so surely it's easy to be mistaken. "

I'm not refutting that the CP can be integrated with other SA-10 sites and disparate remote sensors, but that the SA-10 missile cannot be guided by other remotely located disparate sensors because the only sensors that can guide the SA-10 are the Top Dome and Flap Lid. Only SA-10 batteries and Slava/Kirov/Karas have such radars. SO an SA-6 battery)or whatever) cannot provide illumination for a SA-10. Further, an SA-10's Top Dome or Flap Lid FCR cannot provide illumination for a remote SA-6(or whatever) launch.

Comparing to Aegis, the Mk7 Aegis can control not just other platforms weapons, but also their sensors. IOW, An Aegis can use ship A's sensor suite/FCR to target ship B's weapons, while the actual Aegis controlling the engagement has neither LOS or radar lock on the incoming target.

Or, an Aegis can use it's own sensors to illuminate for another missile from a different ship(or vice versa). Why?

Partly because all USN missiles operate on the same radar band and use common FCR's. Russian missiles do not. They operate on all kinds of different bands, and have missile specific FCR's.

ESSM, NSMMS, SM-1, SM-2, and SM-3 all use a common FCR radar, the latest version being the SPG-62.

The other enabler that makes the remote Aegis engagement capability possible is the FCEC/JTIDS-FDL datalink system, and the Russians simply do not have any system remotely comparable to FCEC(Niether does anyone else outside of NATO- who have access to the US FCEC- except Sweden, who have developed their own system).

lurker
16 Aug 03,, 18:11
In other words, they don't have the capability because the neccesary aircraft is either not embarked by choice or neccesity.
Anyway you slice it, the Sov's organic OTH capability cannot take advantadge of Sunburn's maximum potential.


Chinese simply did not order them, Indian navy is getting 10 for their fleet. Alhough the deal was signed in 1999, I dont' have any info on how it's advancing.

For anyone interested, there is a photo:
http://ephf.ispu.ru/avio/vertol/ka-31.jpg



"Depends on where chinese will be firing from. China have a long coast line."

Even IF China could fire ICBM's at Taiwan, why would they? Those are for deterring the US/Russia, and the Chicoms have very few ICBM's in their inventory.


Well, since we are discussiang a theoretical question about Sovremenny encountering Kidd, I dont' think that we should limit ourselvs by discussing politics also.
I think that chineese naval doctrine is not much dufferent from Soviet, and that was "Any big ship should get a big nuke".

That is why I think in the case of a conflict - nukes may and will be used.

So therefore, nothing prevents Chineese from installing a nuc. warheads on Sunburns.



"Those reports were never confirmed."

They were never refuted either. For all any of us know, china has ONE SSBN, and it's got a US SSN on it's six at all times anyway.

Well... I prefere to overestimate in case of the unknowns, since underestimation usually leads to unpleasant surprises.

I've heard that Chineese SSBN's are spending all their time in the internal chineese waters, which is not different from an old soviet "bastion" approarch.

Another thing - soviet ships were usually changing numbers for each voyage, if chinese are doing the same - nobody actually knows how many SSBN's are in chineese navy.

I've found that some data on Chinese nuc. forces are obviously wrong, but they got reprinted over and over for the last 20 years.

bigross86
16 Aug 03,, 20:47
Quote:

No they won't. Taiwan is FAR inside the minimum range of an ICBM wrt to China. Besides, China won't be nuking anyone, they have no desire to glow in the dark themselves.



Depends on where chinese will be firing from. China have a long coast line.


It doesn't make a differece where the ChiComms launch from. It matters where it lands, Taiwan, which will make the ChiComms glow in the dark too.
btw your signature line, or something VERY similar to it is credited to Gen. George S. Patton Jr., during WWII, not an unknown Russian soldier...

lurker
16 Aug 03,, 21:26
It doesn't make a differece where the ChiComms launch from. It matters where it lands, Taiwan, which will make the ChiComms glow in the dark too.


Yes, maybe it will. But neverless, if chinese are following soviet steps - then nukes wil most sertainly be used in any form of such a conflict.

And I have serious doubts that someone will retaliate agianst the mainland in a case of losing some task force to tactical nuke.


btw your signature line, or something VERY similar to it is credited to Gen. George S. Patton Jr., during WWII, not an unknown Russian soldier...

The signature is a direct translation from russian. It belongs to some captain teaching the first classes in the military academy. Maybe he was quotting Patton, - I don't know.

bigross86
16 Aug 03,, 21:32
Why? When the Sov's went into Afdirtistan/Chechnya they didn't use nukes. And arab countries that follow the doctrine haven't used bio weapons (which they have plenty.)

Bill
16 Aug 03,, 22:50
No one is going to nuke anyone.

It would be suicide, and i can't see any except MAYBE Kim In Sane doing something that blatantly stupid.

Officer of Engineers
17 Aug 03,, 00:07
There were persistent rumours concerning the number of SSBN in 2AC service, not the PLAN. Four XIA hulls were reported being laid but only one has been confirmed in operations. Current reports from JDW suggest that the Chinese haven't quite nailed down the reactor design yet that could take the punishment of a missile launch.

Former members of the PLAN acquainted with the program said the three hulls are rusting in harbour and there's no plan to get the money to finish them. The SONG class seems to be the current local production priority.

bigross86
17 Aug 03,, 02:33
So in essence half the ChiComms nuke arsenal could be destroyed with one torpedo?

Officer of Engineers
17 Aug 03,, 02:49
Not by a long shot.

The 2nd Artillery Corps is believed to have between 400 (IISS) and 1000 nukes (JDW). Only 12 JL-12 missiles has been seen on the XIA (thought to be 3-4 MIRV capable but no evidence has been seen thus far).

ICBM count is between 20 (IISS) and 60 (JDW) with the rest in IRBM/MRBM/SRBM/tac nuke/air drop/mine form.

SSBN counts a very small portion of the 2AC arsenal.

bigross86
17 Aug 03,, 12:27
Are the nukes on the Xia ICBM/LRBM's or are they SRBM's?

Officer of Engineers
17 Aug 03,, 14:51
Damn you're lazy.

China Military Guide (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/index.html)

And no such thing as a LCBM it's

ICBM - Inter-Continental Ballastic Missile
IRBM - Intermediate Range Ballastic Missile
MRBM - Medium Range Ballastic Missile
SRBM - Short Range Ballastic Missile
SLBM - Submarine Launched Ballastic Missile

bigross86
17 Aug 03,, 16:02
I didn't write LCBM's, I wrote LRBM's. As for me being lazy, guilty as charged :D 8) :twisted: :p :Dbanana

lurker
17 Aug 03,, 16:10
Looked closer at Kidd, found out that it have only two SPG-55D target illuminators.

Means it can attack only 2 targets at once.

bigross86
17 Aug 03,, 16:40
Yeah, but the Kidd can salvo and than switch targets in flight.

lurker
17 Aug 03,, 16:57
Yeah, but the Kidd can salvo and than switch targets in flight.

Nope.

bigross86
17 Aug 03,, 18:51
I don't know too much about this, I'm just a civvie. Snipe or RickUSN will come here and explain it to you.

rickusn
18 Aug 03,, 00:56
AFAIK the Kidd class could illuminate 3 air targets with the their two SPG-51D illuminators and one dual -purpose SPG-60 illuminator. AFAIK they had to illuminate the target for the entire engagement unlike AEGIS which only needs to illuminate the target for the terminal phase("for the last few seconds before the missle detonates"). Thus while AEGIS can attack up to 20 targets simultaneously, the Kidd class can only attack 3.

SPG-55 illuminators were on older DDG(Coontz), CG(Leahy & Belknap) and CGN(Long Beach, Truxton & Bainbridge) for use with Standard ER missles.

Also its interesting to note that the California class CGN had 4 SPG-51 illuminators plus one SPG-60, while the Virginia class CGN had only 2 SPG-51 and one SPG 60.

Bill
18 Aug 03,, 20:49
Hey Rick, good to see ya came back for a second helping of GR.

Canuckian, if you can motivate BR away from laziness, you are a much finer officer than i gave you credit for. ;)

"Looked closer at Kidd, found out that it have only two SPG-55D target illuminators.

Means it can attack only 2 targets at once.""

As rick pointed out, it's three illuminators.

Rick, you sure the NTU needs constant illumination? I was under the impression it only needs the 4 second terminal illumination as CapnC stated.

I'll haveta look into the SM-2MR Block IIIA, cause that is probably the deciding factor. I didn't think the IIIA was still a beam rider like the older blocks were. I think it's command guidance, meaning it needs only the last 4 seconds of illumination, flying on autopilot until terminal.

Bill
18 Aug 03,, 20:57
Here we go...

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-66.html

"SM-2 (Standard Missile 2) was developed as the missile component of the U.S. Navy's Aegis fleet air defense system. The SM-2 missile uses semi-active radar homing only in the terminal intercept phase, and has a new inertial guidance unit and a new programmable MK 2 autopilot to guide it near the projected point of intercept. On Aegis ships, this autopilot is command-guided to the target by the launching ship, which can track multiple targets with the Aegis' powerful AN/SPY-1 radar (current version is AN/SPY-1D). When used on earlier Tartar ships, SM-2 uses pre-launch settings and its inertial guidance system to find its way to the target. Not needing SAR guidance through all its flight-path, effective intercept range of the SM-2MR is 60 percent greater than for the SM-1MR. The command guidance allows a more energy-efficient flight path, and the illuminator radar (e.g. AN/SPG-62) can provide effective illumination at almost doubled target ranges (because illumination immediately after launch is especially power-demanding, when the radar beam has to travel all the distance from ship to target and back). A further improvement in the SM-2 is the new monopulse seeker for terminal homing, which provides better ECM resistance."

"SM-2MR Block II introduced an improved Thiokol MK 104 rocket motor, to deal with faster and more manoeuverable targets. The effective range is almost doubled, reaching the limits of illuminator power. Block II also has a new high-velocity fragmentation warhead. The RIM-66G is the Aegis version, RIM-66H is for vertical launch on Aegis ships with MK 41 VLS (Vertical Launch System), and RIM-66J is for Tartar ships. SM-2MR Block II entered service in 1983."

"SM-2MR Block III introduced an improved MK 45 MOD 9 TDD (Target Detecting Device) for better performance against low-altitude targets. Block III A has a new MK 125 warhead with heavier grain explosive, and Block III B (for Aegis/VLS only) incorporates an MHIP (Missile Homing Improvement Program) combined radar/IR seeker for terminal homing. The IR sensor is in a side fairing of the missile. The MHIP seeker was also intended for the cancelled AIM/RIM-7R Sparrow missile. The designation RIM-66K applies to Tartar system missiles (RIM-66K-1 Block III, RIM-66K-2 Block III A), RIM-66L is the Aegis missile (RIM-66L-1 Block III, RIM-66L-2 Block III A), and RIM-66M is the Aegis missile for the MK 41 VLS (RIM-66M-1 Block III, RIM-66M-2 Block III A, RIM-66M-5 Block III B). Block III production began in 1988, with the Block III A following in 1991. Blocks III A and B are the current production versions."

lurker
18 Aug 03,, 22:24
So there is no mid-course guidance for SM2 on ships without AN/SPY-1?

... that surely helps a lot. :confused:

rickusn
18 Aug 03,, 23:07
Even though SM-2 doesnt need illumination all the way to the target, in NTU ships I believe the illuminator still has to be dedicated to a single target. Unlike AEGIS which can track a # of targets and outgoing missles simultaneously I dont think NTU can do this. Because if it could what would be the purpose of AEGIS? But Im still checking.

I stand corrected apparently. See below


The whole Aegis thing is being rather misinterpreted in the news. The Kidd class is an NTU platform (almost the same weapon systems as my ship except we had different launchers.) The NTU system stands for "New Threat Upgrade." This name is a blatant lie. It was a completely new system that was sold to congress as an upgrade to the older system with which it has nothing in common. It was developed under Reagan and fielded under Bush and while it is different than Aegis, it would not be correct to say it is inferior. It is actually a newer system than the Aegis. There are a couple of main things that a ship's anti-air warfare system do and make these good systems, I will compare them briefly.

1. Track while scan large numbers of targets. Both NTU and Aegis do this with virtually no difference.

2. Control large number of airborne missiles automatically across 360 degrees, use fire control directors for only terminal guidance. This is true of both systems (in fact by the time the fire control director illuminates a target there is only about 5 seconds before impact for both systems.)

3. Operate against Electronic Warfare jamming. Both have good frequency agility and the SPY-1 phased array radar of the Aegis has some rather nifty burn through features. The 48E radar on the NTU does much of what the Aegis does (it is actually very similar to the SPY-1 except it is a rotating radar vice a four panel fixed radar like the SPY-1) plus NTU also has a lower frequency SPS -49 radar (2D) which is very hard to jam. NTU evaluates tracks from both radar's and chooses the best one. The Aegis system takes whatever it gets from the SPY--1 as gospel. The SPS-49 radar is better at looking over land than either the SPY-1 or the 48E so for close to land operation (which is what the Taiwanese are looking to do) NTU is generally the superior system.

4. Hit a wide variety of targets and/or attack profiles. This is somewhat a mixed bag. The Aegis system is a little better for some of the high flyer/diver shots (these were the big threat in the '70's when the Aegis was developed.) It is this capability that makes it a candidate for turning into an anti-ballistic missile platform. Obviously that would be a very useful upgrade but it is still an idea, not a system. The NTU uses the same missile and a very similar fire control director so there aren't a lot of differences. There are a couple of shots that the NTU can make that the Aegis won't and vise versa but it comes real close to a pick'em. (To be honest the Aegis is probably on balance a slightly better system for some reasons I'm not going into here, but the differences are very small and it does depend on what you want to do.)

Ill post the link later. Im still doing some searching.
Heres the link
http//www.gigo-soapbox.org/gigo/2001/04/25.shtml

I was lead to believe that AEGIS was orders of magnitude better than NTU.
From what Ive been reading that isnt neccessarily true. Although NTU cant shoot down ballistic missles and most AEGIS ships have VLS which I understand is a great improvement over the older launchers.

Also I found this at www.globalsecurity.org about the Kidds

"AAW Anti-Air Warfare
The ship is obviously derived from the Spruance class vessels, the main difference being the mounting of two twin-arm launchers for SAMs, as opposed to the ASW equipment of the Spruances. There are only two directors fitted on the ship to illuminate for the SAMs, which means that whilst the Kidds can fire off missiles at the same rate as the early Ticonderogas, they can only engage half the number of targets. However, to redress this, the SPG-60 director for the 5" guns may instead be used as a third SAM illumination radar."

Bill
19 Aug 03,, 03:28
I would redirect you gentlemen to the previously linked excerpt:

"When used on earlier Tartar ships, SM-2 uses pre-launch settings and its inertial guidance system to find its way to the target. Not needing SAR guidance through all its flight-path, effective intercept range of the SM-2MR is 60 percent greater than for the SM-1MR. The command guidance allows a more energy-efficient flight path, and the illuminator radar (e.g. AN/SPG-62) can provide effective illumination at almost doubled target ranges (because illumination immediately after launch is especially power-demanding, when the radar beam has to travel all the distance from ship to target and back)."

Clearly, Kidd's(Tartar type ship) SM-2MR Block III uses prelaunch settings and INS, and therefore doesn't need continuous illumination.

Bill
19 Aug 03,, 03:48
"There are only two directors fitted on the ship to illuminate for the SAMs, which means that whilst the Kidds can fire off missiles at the same rate as the early Ticonderogas, they can only engage half the number of targets. However, to redress this, the SPG-60 director for the 5" guns may instead be used as a third SAM illumination radar."

This is something i feel a need to adress.

The way these illuminators work(as per a previous discussion with SEER Stuart of David Newton's board), is that they illuminate a CORRIDOR of airspace, NOT individual missiles.

Therefore, the multiple FCR's serve to increase the total amount of 360 degree illumination coverage, not the number of missiles inflight themselves.

Each FCR illuminator has in the vicinity of a 30 degree illumination beam. All missiles in that cone are illuminated simultaneously. This beam can be narrowed to as sharp as 1 to 1 1/2 degrees to overcome intense jamming or to illuminate at maximum emmiter range. A narrow beam is obviously limited in the number of tracks it can illuminate for, which is why in a general attack the illuminator's will be configured to cover the full 30 degree arc. When SEER gave me this explanation he stated this was the SPG-62 he was referring to.

What multiple illuminators do is allow you to engage attacks from various points of the compass more quickly, and at greater ranges.

What controls the total number of missiles that can be in the air at once is illuminator availability on any given bearing, and most importantly, the air warfare computer's maximum processing power. The air warfare suite has to remember exactly where and exactly when to train the illuminators to provide terminal guidance for the various inflight missiles. On Aegis, the Mk7 itself also controls the missiles flights themselves directly through a datalink, so it requires massive processing power.

That's where the Aegis has 'em all beat.....it's got more brains than the competition.

bigross86
19 Aug 03,, 11:33
Is it true that some laptops have more advanced technology than the first model AEGIS system?

Stinger
19 Aug 03,, 12:57
Hey look every one Ross made Butter bar... now no one has to listen to him, and Ross isn't impersonating a rank of someone important.... (yes yes I know this will come back to bite me in the ass when I get to be a 2LT)

bigross86
19 Aug 03,, 13:36
Fine, everyone is allowed ONE JOKE ONLY at my expense, now that I'm a 2LT.

ChrisF202
19 Aug 03,, 13:39
I got like 100 more posts before i get my buttarbars

bigross86
19 Aug 03,, 13:45
I think when you hit 400. Can one of the Mod's please post the list of ranks? The one in the introduction thread is completely messed up.

Captain C
23 Aug 03,, 07:53
Tartar ship is a misnomer since actual "Tartar" missiles were out of service for many years when NTU or AEGIS entered service. Not all ships that fired SM2 were converted to NTU. Those ships that weren't converted to NTU couldn't do the in-flight course corrections that NTU or AEGIS ships could. Only two of the Kidd's were converted to NTU IIRC. I have no doubt that all will be up to that standard. Perhaps with four fixed 48E radars....... Can we say AEGIS on the sly????

:N

rickusn
23 Aug 03,, 18:59
NTU upgrade completed

Scott March 1988
Kidd Sept. 1989
Callaghan July 1990
Chandler Aug. 1990

From "Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet"

The four Virginia CGNs apparently didnt receive the full upgrade but I dont know how that affected their capabiliity. The Truxtun and Long Beach
may not have received the full upgrade either. Apparently the Bainbridge, the Leahys and Belknaps did.

Captain C
23 Aug 03,, 20:58
Must have been the Virginias I was thinking of. I may have to go back to their websites and find out. I know the Truxtun didn't receive the full upgrade.

Thanks for the info Rick!!!!

BTW, I seriously doubt they would mount 4 radar units due to the weight..... But it is fun to think about!

rickusn
23 Aug 03,, 23:50
Weight is always a concern.

bigross86
24 Aug 03,, 09:20
How much weight do you have to put on a shop to slow it down by one knot?

Captain C
25 Aug 03,, 04:54
It's not just the weight, It's where you put it. Too much weight up high, like mounting the four antennas I was joking about, would make the ship top heavy with a tendency to roll way too far or break off the masts in a roll. Too much weight forward without compensatory ballast aft would give you a nose down look with a tendency to wave dive. Not a good thing. Too much weight aft without ballast forward might give your sonar dome a tendency to surface which doesn't help with sub tracking. Too much weight in the wrong spot can twist/fracture the keel from stress.....

How much weight to slow a ship 1 knot depends on the ship and hull form. I won't even pretend to be an engineer so I won't attempt to tell you how much........

:H

bigross86
25 Aug 03,, 10:18
Aiight. Thankx for the answer.

Captain C
27 Aug 03,, 03:37
No problem big guy!!!!!

Praxus
27 Aug 03,, 04:29
In the event of a war in the Chinese Straight could US Aegis ships take control of the Kidd Class destroyers, using the supperior Aegis equipment to track the target and then fire a missile from the Kidd Class Destroyer?

Is this even possible?

Bill
27 Aug 03,, 08:13
The Kidd's would need the US FCEC datalink, but yes, it's possible.

The USN is in the process of installing FCEC on all it's warships that will be in service beyond 2010 or so, last i heard.

kazak
17 Jul 04,, 16:30
hey, guys, i am a newbie here. im not sure i even have the right to get in the way of such heavy-calibers like you here, officers and experts. But, first question: lurker, were you joking about being a retired Red Army Air-Defence expert? COs if you were, i'd wanna hug you and shake your hand, Comrad. Zdorovo zivete, raket4iki molodzi !!

Bill
17 Jul 04,, 16:52
Welcome aboard fella.

GabRaz
04 Sep 04,, 17:08
Quick question:

What's the max range of the SM-6 (AKA ERAM)?

Thanks

sw55
01 Jan 05,, 21:00
The Kidd's were designed as multirole warships and have MUCH better AAW capability than the Sovremney after the NTU update.

Given the Kidd's capacity of 68 SM-2MR(70 mile range) missiles, and inner defenses of 2 Phalanx and 5" guns, a Kidd is far more likely to survive an attack against 8 Sunburns than a Sovremney is against 68 SM-2MR's and 8 Harpoons...

Kidd has vastly better ECM/ECCM and much, much better sonar.

Even today Kidd's are among the most powerful warships afloat. The Chinese have no counter for them in the Strait.

I am an amature here, and I have always thought of the us surface fleet Harpoon SSM as an anemic answer to the faster Russian missiles, but do remember the SM-1/2 series was a SSM as well. (in the first gulf war wasn't it used against some armed oil rigs by US frigates?) Now I wasn''t in the navy, but it does make sense that it be used against surface targets as well, I just didn't know it was a widely thought of as such. My question is, is this the tactic used by the USN to engage surface warships to soften them up with SMs and then finish them off with Harpoon's? It would make sense, and the MK 41 vertical launchers would be particularly deadly as such. And how would you target such weapons as the SM-2 series over the horizon? And are the Russian surface to air weapons also capable of this, like the naval version of the SA-10? I have to admit, the RUssians don't look 9 feet tall any more on a surface to surface ballance after reading about the SSM capability of the SM-2s. (from a laymen's point of view anyway)

Bill
02 Jan 05,, 09:43
SM-2 has a flight speed of Mach 3.5 making it very hard to intercept, and a decent sized 165lb warhead. A Kidd with the NTU upgrade can illuminate as many as six SM-2s at once(i believe), so using SM-2 the Kidds have a tremendous saturation anti-ship capability as long as the target is visible on the electronic horizon.

(most) Modern warships are very lightly armored, so the SM-2 is a very effective anti-ship missile against most ships cruiser sized or smaller.

Remember, one only needs to mission kill a ship to knock it out of the fight, and a salvo of SM-2s is very good for doing just that.

Once the ship is disabled and defenseless any of a variety of munitions can be used to sink it at a later time.

sw55
02 Jan 05,, 21:46
"electornic horizon" would be about what for a Kidd, or Ticonderoga, or Burke? I am guessing that would be a function of the antenna above the waterline, at which (waterline) the 'horizon' is about 22 miles??? So I am guessing about 60 to 100 feet above that, where the radar antenna is, it might be about 40 to 60 miles??? (I am guessing) This is of course assuming ship against ship with no external sensor input, like satellite, or E-2, or P-3. With such "external input" can the ship launch a SM-2 against another ship which would otherwise be below that "electronic horizon"?

Sorry for the numerous questions, but I have been curious on such things ever since my cousin, who commanded a Knox class frigate, signed me up to recieve "Proceedings" a couple decades ago. (he has since passed away).

Bill
03 Jan 05,, 02:16
With CEC(cooperative engagement control) any sensor platform can provide midcourse update for an SM-2, but lacking an active radar seeker it would have to rely on it's IR seeker for terminal guidance, and i have no idea if it can be used in that way, sorry.

But SM-2 can definitely be used out to the electronic horizon of any ship in the fleet that has an illuminator(if CEC capability is present).

CEC has had a lot of problems with implementation because of bandwidth issues, so i've no idea if it's possible to do that yet.

Electronic horizon is a function of illuminator power and height above the waterline, and finally the RCS of the target(which is immense for ships).

sw55
03 Jan 05,, 03:06
With CEC(cooperative engagement control) any sensor platform can provide midcourse update for an SM-2, but lacking an active radar seeker it would have to rely on it's IR seeker for terminal guidance, and i have no idea if it can be used in that way, sorry.

But SM-2 can definitely be used out to the electronic horizon of any ship in the fleet that has an illuminator(if CEC capability is present).

CEC has had a lot of problems with implementation because of bandwidth issues, so i've no idea if it's possible to do that yet.

Electronic horizon is a function of illuminator power and height above the waterline, and finally the RCS of the target(which is immense for ships).


Thanks.

Bill
03 Jan 05,, 04:42
NP.

Highsea could probably give ya a better answer, maybe he'll stumble onto this thread and do so.