What do you think of RoK Navy KDX3 Aegis Destroyer

[level]

Mod. please delete this thread.

 

I deleted it.

Edited August 25, 2007 by level

[Praet]

Oh, could you please take out the images and just link them?

 

In my opinion it's one of the most capable Burke clone designs fielded worldwide. Although it does not represent my personally preferred DDG design (which would be a modified MEKO X concept), the KDX III should be useful ships significantly boosting the RoKN naval AAW and ASuW capabilities.

 

Although combining Goalkeeper and RAM also combines weapon specific advantages, I'd have replaced the Goalkeeper with a second RAM launcher and added medium calibre guns such as the MLG27 linked to the combat system.

Furthermore, an OTO 127/54 LW or OTO 127/64 LW (depending on the main gun requirements - including naval gunfire spport?) instead of the Mk.45 Mod4.

 

SPY-1, although an outdated PAR concept, is a core element of the chosen ship design and AEGIS combat system, so incorporating a more advanced active array radar such as the APAR would have been too complicated.

[level]

Oh, could you please take out the images and just link them?

 

In my opinion it's one of the most capable Burke clone designs fielded worldwide. Although it does not represent my personally preferred DDG design (which would be a modified MEKO X concept), the KDX III should be useful ships significantly boosting the RoKN naval AAW and ASuW capabilities.

 

Although combining Goalkeeper and RAM also combines weapon specific advantages, I'd have replaced the Goalkeeper with a second RAM launcher and added medium calibre guns such as the MLG27 linked to the combat system.

Furthermore, an OTO 127/54 LW or OTO 127/64 LW (depending on the main gun requirements - including naval gunfire spport?) instead of the Mk.45 Mod4.

 

SPY-1, although an outdated PAR concept, is a core element of the chosen ship design and AEGIS combat system, so incorporating a more advanced active array radar such as the APAR would have been too complicated.

263766[/snapback]

 

Well, RoKN has chosen SPY-1 and ect. becasu it's better fit for their needs. Spain, Norway and Australia thought like that too

[Praet]

The active array APAR is the more advanced radar, at least a generation, if not two ahead of the passive array concept behind SPY-1.

Raytheon is currently working on the SPY-3 active array radar designed to complement the DD(X) and CG(X) and possibly other platforms, should they ever be built and not dropped due to budget shortages...

 

Anyway, choosing AEGIS (combined with SPY-1) is a political decision as well, that's why Spain dropped the APAR plans for its F-100 FFG and opted for AEGIS instead. The Norwegian Nansen FFG were derived from the Spanish F-100 design by Izar/Navantia and were therefore slated for AEGIS integration.

The Australian Sea 4000 AWD will be designed for AEGIS, as Gibbs&Cox were selected as the preferred design and engineering supplier - guess who is responsible for the Burke design.

 

So, the most prominent part of the decisions in favor of AEGIS during the last two decades were politically motivated, rather than technologically.

Edited December 29, 2005 by Praet

[level]

The active array APAR is the more advanced radar, at least a generation, if not two ahead of the passive array concept behind SPY-1.

Raytheon is currently working on the SPY-3 active array radar designed to complement the DD(X) and CG(X) and possibly other platforms, should they ever be built and not dropped due to budget shortages...

 

Anyway, choosing AEGIS (combined with SPY-1) is a political decision as well, that's why Spain dropped the APAR plans for its F-100 FFG and opted for AEGIS instead. The Norwegian Nansen FFG were derived from the Spanish F-100 design by Izar/Navantia and were therefore slated for AEGIS integration.

The Australian Sea 4000 AWD will be designed for AEGIS, as Gibbs&Cox were selected as the preferred design and engineering supplier - guess who is responsible for the Burke design.

 

So, the most prominent part of the decisions in favor of AEGIS during the last two decades were politically motivated, rather than technologically.

263788[/snapback]

 

RoKN has not chosen navy weapons and systems by politically driven decisions.

Radar, CIS,CIWS, Helo, Gun etc. almost all these installed in RoKN was mainly EU products before KDX3 Aegis Destroyer project.

 

RoKN has chosen SPY-1D baseline 7.1 because it is proven technology. Thales claims APAR is better than SPY-1 radar but it is not proven in actual war but just in simulations. Nobody knows that APAR will operate properly in real combat.

Edited December 29, 2005 by level

[Praet]

RoKN has not chosen navy weapons and systems by politically driven decisions.

263811[/snapback]

Of course they did, at least partly. They selected a Burke clone, which comes with AEGIS/SPY-1 in a package. If they had specifically wanted APAR, they would have selected a completely different ship design.

The Burkes are proven and kind of a best seller in their size. There currently is no comparable type in the world which would offer the same amount of experience with the platform itself and proven design to the same extent AND which is optimized for APAR or related developments.

So they chose a proven platform that came with SPY-1, rather than a proven SPY-1 that came with a platform.

 

Of course APAR hasn't been used in combat, but AEGIS/SPY-1 hasn't been stressed to its limits in a real combat situation either.

Technologically, APAR is more advanced than SPY-1. That's a fact, and has nothing to do with proven in combat or not, it's just the radar technology being 20 years younger.

Edited December 29, 2005 by Praet

[level]

Of course they did, at least partly. They selected a Burke clone, which comes with AEGIS/SPY-1 in a package. If they had specifically wanted APAR, they would have selected a completely different ship design.

The Burkes are proven and kind of a best seller in their size. There currently is no comparable type in the world which would offer the same amount of experience with the platform itself and proven design to the same extent AND which is optimized for APAR or related developments.

So they chose a proven platform that came with SPY-1, rather than a proven SPY-1 that came with a platform.

 

Of course APAR hasn't been used in combat, but AEGIS/SPY-1 hasn't been stressed to its limits in a real combat situation either.

Technologically, APAR is more advanced than SPY-1. That's a fact, and has nothing to do with proven in combat or not, it's just the radar technology being 20 years younger.

263824[/snapback]

 

 

APAR does not have integration of Cooperative Engagement Capability(CEC) and Tactical Ballistic Missile(TBMD) capability.

 

APAR is much vulnerable when operates in complicated shoreline i.e. rias coast than SPY-1.

 

Sout Korea has rias coast in west and south sea, very complicated shoreline it is.

 

I say again APAR was not chosen because it was not best for our needs.

Edited December 29, 2005 by level

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

Anyway, choosing AEGIS (combined with SPY-1) is a political decision as well, that's why Spain dropped the APAR plans for its F-100 FFG and opted for AEGIS instead.

 

Sorry, but Spain opted for Aegis instead of APAR for TECHNICAL reasons: at that time APAR was still far from being completed and tested, and the Spanish Navy believed it was better to chose a proven technology like Aegis. At that time there were no specific political constraints when choosing a new radar and combat system for the F-100 class. Besides, APAR is more a fire control radar than a all purpose radar system and needs a separate set for volume search, which in current uses is mechanically rotated. The Spanish Navy thought and still does) that this is unaceptable in a modern warship given the limitations fo this kind of volume search. So we opted for Aegis, using a hybrid Baseline 5/6 standard with local adaptions. Next in the series, F-106 has a core Aegis system using Baseline 6/7 elements which will be retrofitted to the earlier fur ships.

 

The Norwegian Nansen FFG were derived from the Spanish F-100 design by Izar/Navantia and were therefore slated for AEGIS integration.

 

Navantia offered several NANSEN designs and everybody was quite surprised when Norway opted for the Aegis variant for what was stated to be mostly a ASW/general purpose design!

[Guest pfcem]

SPY-1, although an outdated PAR concept, is a core element of the chosen ship design and AEGIS combat system, so incorporating a more advanced active array radar such as the APAR would have been too complicated.

263766[/snapback]

The SPY-1 is far from outdated. PAR radar (like the SPY-1) still has significant advantages over APAR. Yes APAR radar has advantages over PAR but it does not (yet) make PAR obsolete.

[Scott Cunningham]

Tight looking design. i like the 2x helicopters and backup CIWS arrangement.

 

The US was foolish to not include helicopter facilities in the first batch of Burkes. They will retire early because of it.

[EvanDP]

Tight looking design. i like the 2x helicopters and backup CIWS arrangement.

 

The US was foolish to not include helicopter facilities in the first batch of Burkes. They will retire early  because of it.

264047[/snapback]

 

At the time didn't the USN have more than enough hulls with helo capabilities. Knox, O.H. Perry, Spruance and others. Not to mention they were going to be placed in carrier battlegroups.

[gewing]

HMM, maybe that is where Taiwan should go shopping?

[Scott Cunningham]

Adding a bit of hull length for a helicopter deck is easy money. Why the USN didnt do it is anyones guess. I suppose it could operate with a carrier, but destroyers are historically self reliant and should be able to operate on their own. In any case, a helo makes a destroyer a lot more capable for ASW tasks, as well as general utility stuff

[EvanDP]

Adding a bit of hull length for a helicopter deck is easy money. Why the USN didnt do it is anyones guess. I suppose it could operate with a carrier, but destroyers are historically self reliant and should  be able to operate on their own. In any case, a helo makes a destroyer a lot more capable for ASW tasks, as well as general utility stuff

264143[/snapback]

 

IIRC the short Burkes were built because they could be built in the existing hulls faster. The older cruisers were retired they were never going to buy anymore CGNs and they were afraid of massed ASM attacks.

[jakec]

HMM, maybe that is where Taiwan should go shopping?

264137[/snapback]

 

You're joking right?

[Praet]

Besides, APAR is more a fire control radar than a all purpose radar system and needs a separate set for volume search, which in current uses is mechanically rotated. The Spanish Navy thought and still does) that this is unaceptable in a modern warship given the limitations fo this kind of volume search.

263845[/snapback]

The lack of an additional long-range volume search radar can be considered as a drawback of the Burke/F100/Nansen designs as well. The Ticos at least have an AN/SPS-49. How unacceptable a state-of-the-art rotating phased array for long range volume search is surely supported by the fact that the UK, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Germany have adopted the SMART-L/S1850M as the long-range air search radar of choice for their future AAW platforms. Must be hell of unacceptable for a modern warship given the limitations for this kind of volume search...

 

Of couse the current APAR configuration is more balanced towards a fire-control role, though it does serve as a multi-function sensor also providing air and surface search.

APAR, however, is the starting point of a whole range of possible configurations and can easily be integrated as the only primary radar sensor of a warship. The MEKO X is designed like that, for example, with a larger six surface active array radar composed of APAR components.

[Praet]

The SPY-1 is far from outdated.  PAR radar (like the SPY-1) still has significant advantages over APAR.  Yes APAR radar has advantages over PAR but it does not (yet) make PAR obsolete.

263951[/snapback]

So, what advantages does it have?

[Scott Cunningham]

Overall this design looks like the took an Arleigh Burke and made it just a bit bigger and more versatile. It had a few extra weapons mounting points, and appears a little bigger overall.

 

Destroyers today are doing what cruisers used to do (and almost weigh the same). Might as well give them the capability to be effective. Just look at the disappointing Knox class (granted, it was a Frigate). There wasnt a whole lot you could do with those things.

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

The lack of an additional long-range volume search radar can be considered as a drawback of the Burke/F100/Nansen designs as well. The Ticos at least have an AN/SPS-49. How unacceptable a state-of-the-art rotating phased array for long range volume search is surely supported by the fact that the UK, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Germany have adopted the SMART-L/S1850M as the long-range air search radar of choice for their future AAW platforms. Must be hell of unacceptable for a modern warship given the limitations for this kind of volume search...

 

The SPY-1 radar system and the related AEGIS fire control/command system has evolvved quite a bit since the A version delivered in the early 80s for the first batch of CG-47 class.

 

The D version was specifically developed to a llow for no separate volume search radar set and although initially developed for smaller ships its ans step over the previous A and B systems fitted to the CG-47 class.

 

The Spanish Navy and her engineers always criticied the need for a separate, mechanically rotated volume search radar since we joined APAR, this set prominently appearing in the early sketches of the F-100 class frigate. They were familiar whith the SPY-1D fitted to the DDG-51 class and when time came (fears of cost overruns, technical problems and long availability period) they change to Aegis was quite smooth. Why they didn`t like mechanically rotated volume separate volume search radards? You need a separate set high abouard which means and higher % of possible equipment failure, mechanically rotated antenna mechanism have a realtive hight % of failure during their lifetime (there`s ample experience in the last 60 years); the relative slow rotation rate causes slow data input and a comparatively less precise target data feed...... there quite a few limitations related to rotatng antennas.

 

I cannot comment on what British, French, Italian, Dutch or German navies think about a separate volume search radar but looks like here our navy made her mind quite early in the game.

 

Of couse the current APAR configuration is more balanced towards a fire-control role, though it does serve as a multi-function sensor also providing air and surface search.

APAR, however, is the starting point of a whole range of possible configurations and can easily be integrated as the only primary radar sensor of a warship. The MEKO X is designed like that, for example, with a larger six surface active array radar composed of APAR components.

264195[/snapback]

 

You said the magic word: CURRENT. If we would have wanted a fully comparable APAR version, how would we have need to wait and how much money would we had to spend? That`s why the Spanish Navy chose Aegis when they did. Does that means APAR is a bad system? Of course not, but at the time we had to chose APAR didn`t fill our needs.

Edited December 30, 2005 by Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo

[FITZ]

Although combining Goalkeeper and RAM also combines weapon specific advantages, I'd have replaced the Goalkeeper with a second RAM launcher

263766[/snapback]

 

In South Korean doctrine Goalkeeper is an anti-surface weapon. RAM is the anti-missile close-in defense.

[Guest pfcem]

So, what advantages does it have?

264196[/snapback]

A number of advantages have already been posted on this thread.

 

Try reading them.

 

I do not feel the need/desire to reiterate what others have already posted here.

[Josh]

HMM, maybe that is where Taiwan should go shopping?

264137[/snapback]

 

If they shop from the US they get a cut rate, since it can be part of aid package. Of course their legislature has blocked major arms purchases the last 42 times it came to a vote, so its kind of a moot point anyway.

[Praet]

A number of advantages have already been posted on this thread. 

 

Try reading them.

 

I do not feel the need/desire to reiterate what others have already posted here.

264286[/snapback]

Don't be so picky, I thought you had something new to contribute...

If you do not feel like reiterating what others have posted, what else did you do then?

 

You said the magic word: CURRENT. If we would have wanted a fully comparable APAR version, how would we have need to wait and how much money would we had to spend? That`s why the Spanish Navy chose Aegis when they did. Does that means APAR is a bad system? Of course not, but at the time we had to chose APAR didn`t fill our needs.

It's a fact Spain has a quite long history of purchasing US equipment: FFG Baleares (Knox), FFG Santa Maria (Perry), the old Fletcher and Gearing type DDs, RL Dedalo (Independence), the Cabildo, Terrebonne Parish and Paul Revere type landing ships/auxiliaries, the Agile and Bluebird minesweepers.

This - at least to me - was also an important factor towards a decision favouring AEGIS.

 

I said current, yes, because the current APAR configuration as used aboard F124 and LCF has finally been developed according to Dutch and German specifications. Spain has been a member of the Trilateral Frigate Agreement since 1994, and prior to its collapse also participated in the NFR90 programme during the 80s. IMHO there has been plenty of time to have influence on the radar concept towards a fully fixed MFR without an additional volume search radar.

APAR already has a range of around 150 nm - by increasing the size of the arrays and therefore increasing the number of T/R modules, combined with a higher antenna peak power it should have been possible to retain system commonality with German and Dutch APAR at least to a good extent, keep R&D and financial efforts low and yet get a radar along the lines of the SPY-1 but using active array technology, for example eliminating the need for dedicated fire-control radars.

[gewing]

You're joking right?

264151[/snapback]

 

 

NOt in the slightest

 

 

Taiwan is the single country I see with the largest need for Aegis level systems.

Edited December 30, 2005 by gewing

[FITZ]

The D version was specifically developed to a llow for no separate volume search radar set and although initially developed for smaller ships its ans step over the previous A and B systems fitted to the CG-47 class.

 

The Spanish Navy and her engineers always criticied the need for a separate, mechanically rotated volume search radar since we joined APAR,

264252[/snapback]

 

I've always been rather fond of the common European approach of having a Volume Search Radar which then hands off to a Tactical Radar for tracking and weapon assignment. Except in its missile ships the USN always tried to get away with one search radar to do everything which I don't think was ideal.

 

Having a VSR can be quite useful with SPY-1 too. The CG-47's of course have SPS-49. The DDG-51's don't because they were designed to cost. They got a cheaper version of SPY-1 and no VSR.

 

SPY-1 is a huge consumer of electrical power. The ships electrical generators of course burn fuel. The more you run the SPY-1 the more electricity you have to generate and the more fuel you burn running the radar instead of getting from A to B. Having a separate VSR allows SPY-1 to be run at lower power in low-threat situations, thus improving endurance. It can also be used as a form of EMCON. Lots of ships have SPS-49 - from carriers to frigates to amphibs. Only destroyers and cruisers have SPY-1. Light that one up and everyone knows what you are right away.