Aegis ship sunk on target range

I didn’t think so but they could of course provide mid-course guidance to SM-3’s launched by other ships………….. :rolleyes:

Possibly but because of the geometry of an SM-3 shot it seems that the shooting vessel can track the SM-3 to impact. SM-6 though it would have given us five more ships to use forward.

And while the USN may not have felt it cost-effective to refit a strike length Mk-41 VLS to these ships, the ROCN probably would to get a modesty effective ATMB capability.

Unicorn

Also, it would be in the interest of the US to have Tawian equipped with Aegis Ships like Japan, Korea, and Australia.

Such is American wastefulness I guess.

By all means give the navy target hulks to sink – there are lots of 30yr old Sprucans for that…but sinking an 18yr old AAW cruiser that could be placed in active reserve status and offer service later as necessary?. Sounds extremely odd to me!.

Interesting. Guess we can sink the first DDXs 18 years after they are put in service. Or the first Burkes etc… My first thought was this must have been the Tico that hit a mine in Desert Storm and was never really right after that… but it wasn’t. Even this ship was about a billion dollars to put into the water. Good grief. It’s only the taxpayer picking up the bill anyway. :rolleyes:

And while the USN may not have felt it cost-effective to refit a strike length Mk-41 VLS to these ships, the ROCN probably would to get a modestly effective ATMB capability.

Unicorn

No.

I didn’t think so but they could of course provide mid-course guidance to SM-3’s launched by other ships………….. :rolleyes:

Can the SM-3 be launched for early non-VLS (i.e. Mk41) Aegis Cruisers?

No.

I believe that the ROC defence establishment may want the Aegis / SPY / SM-3 combo to provide a level of additional balistic missile defence.

Unicorn

Can the SM-3 be launched for early non-VLS (i.e. Mk41) Aegis Cruisers?

I believe that the ROC defence establishment may want the Aegis / SPY / SM-3 combo to provide a level of additional balistic missile defence.

Unicorn

So, you believe a PAAMS equipped T-45 is more capable than a Aegis Cruiser or Destroyer??? Even if true what does either have to do with Taiwans ASW/Littoral needs? :rolleyes:

For Taiwans threat enviroment PAAMS is better than the SPY-1/SM-2 solution because it has a much quicker engagement rate. The active missile does away with the whole shoot-shoot-look or shoot-look-shoot cycle. You let the MFR designate targets and ripple fire off as many missiles as necessary. I dont think T45 is any better suited to Taiwans needs than an AEGIS cruiser as, I think theyre going to be worrying about littorals more than blue water. The initial statement was that the Ticos shouldve gone to Taiwan wasnt it?.

We weren’t talking about Taiwans ASW needs but you said ‘Speaking of littorals and ASW……you would think a reasonable size fleet of SSK’s would be just as worth while?’ and I misunderstood your point!. Simple answer is definitely yes!

Scott

AEGIS is a buzzword isn’t it!. Politicians say they want AEGIS because that, in the main means, snappy, up-to-date and hugely capable regardless of whether its the most appropriate solution or not!.

SPY-1/AEGIS/SARH missile is not the best solution to a massive saturation fire from opposing tactical airpower. Active missiles on as many hulls as possible is by far the better solution.

The answer to SSK’s is low frequency active towed sonar cueing as many HELRAS-type dipping sonars as can practically be lofted!. In other words a fairly sizeable ASW leadship with either a good aviation capability or a group of chopper capable light escorts in support.

Broncho,

Yep they do. They aren’t likely to get PAAMS to refit them with though because the belief seems to be at the moment that anything going to Taiwan today will be in Beijing tomorrow and PAAMS will be one of the big ticket items that the French…..erm….cough…..Europeans will want to drag big bucks in for when the arms embargo ends/gets ignored!

Do you (or anybody else I guess) know if they’re also going to replace SM-2 when SM-6 comes online? SM-6 will have active terminal homing and it seems to me the logical thing to do would be to use the SM-6 sans booster to replace the SM-2. On the other hand where SM-2 Block IIIB has dual homing with IR and SA you’d think that would make up for the lack of active homing.

You know what Rick. I had a reply written out and nearly finished, but, reading over what you wrote its clear you didnt read what I did the first time?. Youre not going to read what I write this time either…just what you think I’m going to write so hey….I’ll not waste my time.

Scott

AEGIS is a buzzword isn’t it!. Politicians say they want AEGIS because that, in the main means, snappy, up-to-date and hugely capable regardless of whether its the most appropriate solution or not!.

SPY-1/AEGIS/SARH missile is not the best solution to a massive saturation fire from opposing tactical airpower. Active missiles on as many hulls as possible is by far the better solution.

The answer to SSK’s is low frequency active towed sonar cueing as many HELRAS-type dipping sonars as can practically be lofted!. In other words a fairly sizeable ASW leadship with either a good aviation capability or a group of chopper capable light escorts in support.

Broncho,

Yep they do. They aren’t likely to get PAAMS to refit them with though because the belief seems to be at the moment that anything going to Taiwan today will be in Beijing tomorrow and PAAMS will be one of the big ticket items that the French…..erm….cough…..Europeans will want to drag big bucks in for when the arms embargo ends/gets ignored!

So, you believe a PAAMS equipped T-45 is more capable than a Aegis Cruiser or Destroyer??? Even if true what does either have to do with Taiwans ASW/Littoral needs? :rolleyes:

“If you, as you appear, are far too sensitive ever to hear anything that could be bad about your former service I suggest you confine yourself to a forum just solely of 15 year old warship fans cos, like, American AEGIS cruisers…man…theyre just like the coolest…they got lots of missiles on ’em – way more’n anyone elses ships!!!!. See the point?.”

Another typical useless, worthless cheap shot.

That is totally untrue.

In fact its a matter of record that I have done just the opposite of what you suggest Ive done.

“giving out the impression that no ill can be said of his service “

I have never given such an impression. Ever.

And I stand by this statement:

“For you may accuse me of such but for eleven years on the internet I have never, ever stated anything like that or that the USN is the “best or has the “best” or does the “best” “

” cant speak for the USN and maybe you lot are all different but if you go on an RN board (try Warships1.com’s) you see a healthy dose of self-analysis and self-criticism of the RN by those who serve and have served.”

I have. And at that site you will also get a “healthy dose” of if its Royal navy its the “best”.

So your statement is self-serving fluff.

Many disparaging commnets have been made about the USN and its equipment with no documentation to back them up.

Just because such attacks often go unchalleged doesnt mean they are either valid or acceptable.

“Suppressing, or denigrating discussion”

No such thing.

Unless you deem challenging undocumented assertions presented as fact doing so.

I asked for documentation and got nothing. Nor will I.

In fact youve made it quite clear I have to provide info that disputes those false assertions to begin with.

Thats bunk.

And then when I have they have been dismissed out of hand.

“The structural issues – definitely agree there, but, those projected costs are usually factored into the wholelife budget for the class, least thats how the RN does it, everyone indeed knows that, at mid-life, ships need major work so you budget for best-case early and avoid most of the pain.”

The USN did but when the time came the funding wasnt there.:

“”Because I know for sure the USN had plans for these ships modernization and that said modernization was not undertaken for funding reasons vice hull problems.”

But I shouldnt have to prove theres not those problems. Thsoe who say there are have that responsibility.

Also some upgrades cant be projected far in advance at least not in the USN.

As for “strange behavior” heres one of many examples of the RN taking similar actions:

F 93 Beaver Commissioned 12/84 Decommissioned 2/99 and towed away for scrapping 2/01.

So you are telling me if the RN does something so egregious its OK? But for the USN its not?

Are you telling me if I made some baseless assertions about why the RN would do this without proper documentation that would be OK?

BS

I do my homework.

I provide documentation and facts to back up my assertions and opinions.

I expect the same from others.

If you think that is wrong then you know exactly why most knowledgeable, informed and respected naval analysts(profeessional or amatuer) take pains to avoid these so-called discussion groups.

Plus if you take a look at Richard Beedalls NavyMatters site you will(Im quite willing to wager) be surprised to see some of my work.

So dont try accusing me with being an anglophobe as once again you would be quite wrong.

This thread was never about truth, facts or reality.

But it has been except for me about unwarranted attacks on the US, USN and myself to serve yours and others baseless disregard for ” truth, facts or reality”.

You can attack me all you want.

But if you care to take a peak in a mirror you will find that how you are attempting to paint me is in fact how you are painted.

Your very long post attacking me holds no water.

As all of the above proves.

Scott

AEGIS is a buzzword isn’t it!. Politicians say they want AEGIS because that, in the main means, snappy, up-to-date and hugely capable regardless of whether its the most appropriate solution or not!.

SPY-1/AEGIS/SARH missile is not the best solution to a massive saturation fire from opposing tactical airpower. Active missiles on as many hulls as possible is by far the better solution.

The answer to SSK’s is low frequency active towed sonar cueing as many HELRAS-type dipping sonars as can practically be lofted!. In other words a fairly sizeable ASW leadship with either a good aviation capability or a group of chopper capable light escorts in support.

Broncho,

Yep they do. They aren’t likely to get PAAMS to refit them with though because the belief seems to be at the moment that anything going to Taiwan today will be in Beijing tomorrow and PAAMS will be one of the big ticket items that the French…..erm….cough…..Europeans will want to drag big bucks in for when the arms embargo ends/gets ignored!

Nope Scot, a big blue water cruiser isnt any good for Taiwanese needs. They dont even need AEGIS.

They need an active missile solution like PAAMS and a smaller, affordable, ship, like the Singaporeans have built just stretched and with a couple dozen more Sylver cells.

The USN has a glaring gap in littoral ASW that the new capabilities are still emerging for. They should have stripped off the Mk26 twin-arms and like I said fitted a Low Frequency Active towed array in place of the original tail, modified the aviation capability to SH-60 operations, perhaps bolted on a couple of RAM launchers and Nulka to enhance the self-defence suite on the cheap and used it as a fast-deployment coastal SURTASS type platform acting as ASWCS for a frigate/chopper group. Like to see that Gotland sneak up on a surface group with an LFA tail banging away after it!

You bring up some good points………….On the otherhand its Taiwan that has expressed a great deal of interest in acquiring a AEGIS Type Warship? Speaking of littorals and ASW……you would think a reasonable size fleet of SSK’s would be just as worth while? :rolleyes:

Taiwan already has La Fayette class don’t they?

Nope Scot, a big blue water cruiser isnt any good for Taiwanese needs. They dont even need AEGIS.

They need an active missile solution like PAAMS and a smaller, affordable, ship, like the Singaporeans have built just stretched and with a couple dozen more Sylver cells.

The USN has a glaring gap in littoral ASW that the new capabilities are still emerging for. They should have stripped off the Mk26 twin-arms and like I said fitted a Low Frequency Active towed array in place of the original tail, modified the aviation capability to SH-60 operations, perhaps bolted on a couple of RAM launchers and Nulka to enhance the self-defence suite on the cheap and used it as a fast-deployment coastal SURTASS type platform acting as ASWCS for a frigate/chopper group. Like to see that Gotland sneak up on a surface group with an LFA tail banging away after it!

Regardless, seems like a big waste…………..the US would have been better served to refit the Valley Forge and sell it to Tawian! IMO :rolleyes:

Rick

Right mate lets get this straight from the kickoff. The point at issue here is the incredulity of those of us who aren’t American at the fact a ship with, by your statement, a LOT of good years left in her has just been hulked and sunk.

There are those of us here with real experience of our respective nations naval services, who’ve seen the degree to which penny-pinching beaurocrats and inept senior brass degrade and deride the services we feel deeply for, who simply cant comprehend why this vessel, already bought and paid for, couldn’t have been put to better use than a SINKEX.

In that context, from your post you not only state that you have no idea why these vessels weren’t retained in reserve – your words being ‘downsizing is downsizing’ – but actually state that there is defined precedent for, what would be in any other naval service on the planet, the most profligate wastefulness.

For those of us with that ‘other naval service’ perspective seeing ships that could still have a useful life, addressing identifiable capability gaps in your fleet (like littoral ASW in the interim before the defined ‘transformational’ platforms come online) is unfathomable. Its no direct criticism of the USN rather simple commentry on what looks, on the face of it, to be very strange behaviour.

And this is way out of line: “…after all they are American boats right!!!!..”

Yes of course it was a cheap shot – but then when faced with a poster giving out the impression that no ill can be said of his service what do you expect. I am deeply proud of the traditions, achievements and capabilities of my own former service but I am never going to allow the pride I felt wearing the uniform blind me to the problems that the British senior service has!. Some of its decisions have also been unfathomable – go back in the archive of this site and you’ll find articles on nearly every one!. Where they’ve been unjust I’ve corrected some misapprehensions, but, not once has it been necessary to say ‘find documentary evidence or you are not allowed an opinion’!.

You say:

For you may accuse me of such but for eleven years on the internet I have never, ever stated anything like that or that the USN is the “best or has the “best” or does the “best”

but then….

Now I do the vast majority of the posters here will consider those sailors useless by virtue of some undocumented defect(s). But I assure you thats not the case. Not that I will sway anyones virulent anti-USN stand/opinion here.

You are therefore coming across that anyone questioning the USN in word or deed is ‘virulent anti-USN’. The best form of defence may be attack but its not necessary every time – sometimes an objective step back can be a useful first move so you dont try and defend whats not being attacked!.

However I have read all the histories of these ships and except for the brief reference on the CG 51…nothing.

I also have checked with a number of ex-USN and current USN who ALL have nothing but good things to say about these ships. They of course are not necessarilly the ultimate authority so Im quite open to someone providing documentation to the contrary.

Great information. Now we see we have two seemingly-credible sources stating diametrically opposing things – an interesting situation – I for one am curious as to why this particluar vessel was SINKEX’d ahead of older vessels more worthy of the fate. In the RN that would be because the hull was in a particularly bad state or that some event had transpired to bump it up the list – we had a Swiftsure class boat, I’m prob not allowed to say which, that had an ‘unscheduled maximum diving depth test’ on its sea trials that shortened its hull lifespan for example. Ifyou stop ranting and keep chipping in with information like that maybe we can get to the bottom of the issue?.

These ships were were at there mid-life point needed expensive upgrading of their AEGIS systems, had no VLS, needed expensive, extensive structural repairs (as all the ships of this class did and as do most mid-life ships) plus among other things needed expensive alterations to operate SH-60F Helos.

Again good information. I didnt know that the SH-2 Tico’s required sigificant mods to deploy SH-60’s. The structural issues – definitely agree there, but, those projected costs are usually factored into the wholelife budget for the class, least thats how the RN does it, everyone indeed knows that, at mid-life, ships need major work so you budget for best-case early and avoid most of the pain.

Plenty of services have found that, at midlife, the capabilities of their ships are no longer competetive at what they were designed to do. If the upgrade is uneconomical then you simply find another, less costly, use for them – if they have the materiel condition – this being the initial question here I was interested in knowing. I said I was expecting information to come to light on significant hull damage not that I knew it!

You can attack me and/or the US, USN all you want but all it proves is your outstanding capacities for ignorance and arrogance.

Thats the point – the discussion and exploration of events are part of what forums like this are for. If you, as you appear, are far too sensitive ever to hear anything that could be bad about your former service I suggest you confine yourself to a forum just solely of 15 year old warship fans cos, like, American AEGIS cruisers…man…theyre just like the coolest…they got lots of missiles on ’em – way more’n anyone elses ships!!!!. See the point?.

I cant speak for the USN and maybe you lot are all different but if you go on an RN board (try Warships1.com’s) you see a healthy dose of self-analysis and self-criticism of the RN by those who serve and have served. Suppressing, or denigrating discussion of, topics uncomfortable to your sensibilities is always likely to be a solo activity. If you’ve not learned that one in eleven years you’ve not been paying attention.

BTW a quite sincere Happy Birthday for yesterday.

LOL

More BS from the cheap seats.

LOL

So what your telling me is only people who dont have facts should post here.

LOL

Why am I not surprised???????????

LOL