AEGIS is able to track/engage hundreds of targets (more than 100 per SPY-1), illumination is only required for the final moments prior to missile impact with threat. SM-6 (modified AMRAAM seeker fitted to SM-2) is meant to suppliment, not replace the SM-2.

Having to illuminate with AN/SPG-62 is still a shortcoming in anybodys book.

talltower-

Any idea what helicopter in under the tarp behind it?

SA 321Ja Super Frelon or a Zhi-8 variant:

Super Frelon

Zhi-8

Ship on ship that is the case. The thing that many observers fail to note when comparing a US design with ours though is the differing design philosophy’s involved.

An Arliegh Burke is never likely to find itself, in a significant threat scenario, outside of the USN support system-of-systems. It matters not a bit if there is no VSR on the hull as its getting the feed from an E-2 over L16 anyway. It matters little if there are only 3 available channels of fire because there are another 3 Burkes and a Tico cruiser in the group for more than a dozen fire-channels. In the USN model their ships work just fine thanks.

Problem is that isnt our model. Its easily conceivable that T45 could find itself as the sole Fleet Air Defence vessel in an RN group with, perhaps, an ASaC chopper in support. The vessels air defence capability has to be that much more advanced. Hence the VSR, hence the active missile and hence the superb Sampson radar.

Thats it in a nut shell, different philosophy and different navy. In the end America can afford huge Carrier battle groups with multiple Arleigh Burke, Tico’s and E2 all talking with each other over Link-16 and networked with CEC. With 56 Arleigh Burke (70 planned) and 22 Tico active the American navy operates under different circumstances.

I do take issue with the quiet dropping of CEC for the Royal Navy as it would of done some to make up for the loss of six planned Type 45 in AAW. CAAM on the Type 23 and future Type 26 networked via CEC with the Type 45 and its superior radar would of been very handy.

Russia downplays Chinese J-15 fighter capabilities

China’s J-15 carrier-based fighter will not be able to compete with Russia’s Su-33 fighter on global markets because it is inferior to the Russian aircraft, a Russian military analyst said on Friday.

China since 2001 has been developing the J-15 naval fighter, which is believed to be a clone of Russia’s Su-33 Falcon-D. China bought an Su-33 prototype earlier from Ukraine, and used it to develop the new aircraft.

The J-15 is expected to be stationed initially onboard the Chinese Varyag aircraft carrier currently being fitted in the port of Dalian. China bought the unfinished Admiral Kuznetsov class aircraft carrier from Ukraine in 1998.
Full Story

This is a rather amusingly petulant statement from Russia, as far as I am aware the Su33 has had zero success on the global export market. Also I doubt the Chinese have developed the J15 with an eye on the global export market. Finally considering the Chinese are rather tight lipped about avionics and systems the Russians can hardly comment about how it will compare to the Su33.

Actually what we do know about the Su33 is its in need of a mid life update as its avionics are rather dated in comparison to newer Sukhoi variants, on the other hand the latest J11B at least when it comes to cockpit avionics is certainly a step or so ahead of older Su27 variants.

I should have clarified – based on what I had read about SAMPSON being cutting edge it seemed strange that so many opinion pieces have cropped up saying that the Type 45 is inferior. Some concentrate on the systems yet to be intergrated, others claim the sonar is rubbish and others generally appear to be a fan of all things American. Is there a reason for some much negativity about the Type 45?

Well because they are an opinion pieces written by journo’s or politico’s with little knowledge of millitary systems development and happy to grind an axe over British defence procurment.

Of course there is a good argument that the UK should of gone for an AEGIS based solution but that would of been at the price of UK industry. Sampson/Sea Viper is an advanced system but will take time to fully bed in, it looks like this process is going far quicker then with Sea Dart on the Type 42.

If people are writing that the Sonar is rubbish then they clearly haven’t got a clue what they are talking about, the Ultra Electronics MFS-7000 is a low risk solution as its a fairly new design already in use with the Brazillian navy. Sonar was never part of the original fit but the PCO decided that in the modern world of litoral warfare that the ability to detect mines (primary role for this sonar) was useful. The TMS 4110CL that is fitted to the Franco/Italian Horizon class was first choice but Thales couldn’t offer a reasonable price. It was put out to open tender and Ultra got the contract, considering it will cost £20 million for the six sonar sets and equipment the navy got a very good deal and the PCO should be commended.

As I said first of all in my opinion the main reason for Type 45 negativity is Bae Systems bashing by people who should know better.

Yep purchased during DERA days and now owned by Qinetiq, they are assigned millitary serials and markings due to the nature of their work.

It was a very sensible cost effective idea, there was a shortage of Hawks available from the RAF and new Hawks would of been prohibatively expensive. Ex German airforce Alpha Jet were available at short notice and at a bargain price. The Alpha jet does everything that Qinetiq wants without putting a burden on the Hawk fleet.

Thanks everyone for correcting my lack of research (also on the UK is Going to Have a Defence Review thread where I have been informed that the OSD for the Type 22’s has been pushed back).

Given the mounting of Phalanx (and the other incremental improvements likely to be added in the next few years, plus ironing the bugs of the Aster 30) is BAE’s claim that the Type 45 is the best Air Defence destroyer in the world justified? Mostly all I can find is rather scathing opinion pieces that the UK should have brought Ageis which seems a little strange when read the spec of what SAMPSON can actually do.

Also, as an aside does anyone know which European country just ordered an OHP which is armoured for the first time since WWII and appears to be set up for littoral engagements as I found an article on it either in the naval news thread or on the internet but I had no luck finding it again last night when I searched for an hour or so.

Navy matters is the best source for information about SAMPSON:

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/sampson.htm

I know its meant to be a step on from what SPY/1 can do but it is hindered by having just two rotating faces. On the other hand its mounted far higher then SPY/1.

As a system Sea-Viper also offers some advantages for example unlike AEGIS which requires the AN/SPG-62 to illuminate the target (changing soon with the adoption of the AMRAAM seeker on Standard) and has the support of a long range volumetric search radar in the form of the S1850M. My major criticism with Type 45 and Sea-Viper is it should have more silos for Aster.

Good man!