Which system is better? PAAMS with the SAMPSON and S1850M or AEGIS with the AN/SPY-1D? GO!
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
it sounds cool.... No i am just kidding I just like the fact it can track over 100 targets at a range of 190km. and still search for more targets at the same time while providing a 360 circle of situation awareness. That and it can shoot down satellites...which is amazing I mean who needs stealth when you can make the enemy blind.
PAAMS can track over 1000 at 400km IIRC. Also, the AN/SPY-1D RADAR used in AEGIS doesn't have 360 degree awareness, only two of the four arrays feed in at the same time which gives the same coverage as the SAMPSON array used in PAAMS, which is also capable of shooting down satellites is the Aster 45 ever enters production.
aegis is battle proven
Exactly when has it been battle proven and against what? Iran Air Flight 655? What has AEGIS shot down? The first wartime shoot down of a missile with a missile was...
"In February 1991 during the Gulf War the battleship USS Missouri, escorted by HMS Gloucester (carrying Sea Dart) and the USS Jarrett (equipped with Phalanx CIWS), was engaged by an Iraqi Silkworm missile (also known as a Seersucker). The Silkworm missile was intercepted and destroyed by a Sea Dart fired from Gloucester. During the same engagement, the Jarrett's Phalanx 20 mm CIWS was placed in autoengagement mode and targeted chaff launched by the Missouri rather than the incoming missile. This engagement was the first validated, successful engagement of a missile by a missile during combat at sea."
Cannons are battle proven too!
you forgot the tomahawk launches that and the USS Jarrett does not have the aegis system.
that and the USS Jarrett does not have the aegis system.
It seems you forgot that Tomahawks aren't guided to their target or managed by AEGIS (aside from being fired by the Mk 41). So, has AEGIS ever actually been used in battle? Also, I wasn't claiming the Jarret did have AEGIS, simply pointing out that Sea Dart got the first missile kill.
Last edited:
Sorry, I had assumed you were having a go at me over that and I did snap a bit, sorry!
I'm not sure... Obviously for starters we don't actually know about these systems... We only KNOW what they want us to KNOW. However so long as we accept that fact I think we can move on.
Aegis has been around for a long time. It means that even if in stiuations like the attempt to shoot down the silkworm occured they have now had a chance to be fixed. In effect due to the time to get to know the system random FUBAR situations are probably less likely to occur. That said Aegis' is an old system.
We have SAMPSON with it's long range search radar. It is interesting to note that the USN is looking heavily into this sensor arrangement. Something that I think is quite telling. By all accounts SAMPSON is better at tracking, harder to jam AND better at engaging below the horizon.
There are some other issues to consider, while many point out Aegis has good coverage I think the time lag is so minimal that when coupled with the AHR on the Aster missile this becomes almost negligible. Also SAMSPON due to the ability to alter the angle of the radar beams as well as the spinning nature of the array makes it much harder to swamp from one direction. Against an Aegis vessel you can negate the sheer power of 1-2 of the Illuminating dishes by simply attacking from one direction. This increases the amount of time sharing each missile has to do AS well as effectively halving the CIWS and Soft-kill defences available.
The Type 45 won't suffer from that as much I suspect mainly because it doesn't have illuminators instead relying on an exceptionally accurate radar backed up by an ARH warhead on the Aster missiles.
SO I would probably use Sampson. In 10 years time, I would DEFINITELY use SAMPSON
Aegis has been around for a long time. It means that even if in stiuations like the attempt to shoot down the silkworm occured they have now had a chance to be fixed. In effect due to the time to get to know the system random FUBAR situations are probably less likely to occur. That said Aegis' is an old system.
We have SAMPSON with it's long range search radar. It is interesting to note that the USN is looking heavily into this sensor arrangement. Something that I think is quite telling. By all accounts SAMPSON is better at tracking, harder to jam AND better at engaging below the horizon.
There are some other issues to consider, while many point out Aegis has good coverage I think the time lag is so minimal that when coupled with the AHR on the Aster missile this becomes almost negligible. Also SAMSPON due to the ability to alter the angle of the radar beams as well as the spinning nature of the array makes it much harder to swamp from one direction. Against an Aegis vessel you can negate the sheer power of 1-2 of the Illuminating dishes by simply attacking from one direction. This increases the amount of time sharing each missile has to do AS well as effectively halving the CIWS and Soft-kill defences available.
The Type 45 won't suffer from that as much I suspect mainly because it doesn't have illuminators instead relying on an exceptionally accurate radar backed up by an ARH warhead on the Aster missiles.
SO I would probably use Sampson. In 10 years time, I would DEFINITELY use SAMPSON
I believe it should be noted that SAMPSON and the AN/SPY-1D are different types of RADAR, AESA and PESA respectively (I have no doubt you know this but just so the other readers can keep up). AESA's are significantly less power hungry as each of the T/R modules transmits a low power EM pulse, the beams being formed by the intersections of the pulses (this contrasts to the very powerful EM pulse being transmitted by PESA systems such as the AN/SPY-1D. AESAs like SAMPSON are easier to maintain, require lower voltage, track a large number of targets but PESAs like the SPY-1D track more than enough vs available missiles, in short the SPY-1D isn't better in terms of performance (range, number of targets engaged in any given time etc) only number of missiles it can call on in total. I don't believe, despite many people on other forums raising this point, that the power output of the SPY-1D really makes it superior.
As for coverage, the AN/SPY-1D has two magnetron's (IIRC) i.e. has two arrays active at any one time, cycling through all four. It beats a single faced rotator hands down, but you'll get an equal amount of time on target from a double faced rotator like SAMPSON and makes the fact the arrays physically cover a 360 arc around the ship meaningless if only two arrays are processed at any one time.
I'm curious Brutoni, I've heard rumours that the Aster 15's are to be phased out and replaced with quad-packed CAMMS, is that feasible?
As for coverage, the AN/SPY-1D has two magnetron's (IIRC) i.e. has two arrays active at any one time, cycling through all four. It beats a single faced rotator hands down, but you'll get an equal amount of time on target from a double faced rotator like SAMPSON and makes the fact the arrays physically cover a 360 arc around the ship meaningless if only two arrays are processed at any one time.
I'm curious Brutoni, I've heard rumours that the Aster 15's are to be phased out and replaced with quad-packed CAMMS, is that feasible?
A good summary there of the ASEA and PESA. Certainly enough to allow others to keep up. I was perhaps a bit remise in not doing so. I do forget the amount of work over the years I've done to try and understand radars even as part of my degree.
I total agree that the power of the Aegis isn't as big an advantage as people make it out to be. Especially due to the pairing of Aster AND SAMPSON. With Active Radar Homing warheads on the Aster even if the SAMPSON loses contact you still have the missile with some kind of seeker. If the missile loses contact SAMPSON can take over. To jam the system you have to jam both...
Finally with regards to power pushing through a jam, the fact that SAMPSON is an ASEA array makes it pretty much impossible to jam due to the frequency agility of the system. Coupled with the ability to go into passive detection mode and then fire a missile at the source of the jamming frequencies being directed at it the lack of power isn't a huge issue.
I think though that the lack of power could be an issue in bad weather. The amount of power an aegis class cruiser can ramp out in bad weather or particularly moist climates would help negate some of the refraction of the radar waves caused when moving through water particles in a very moist or poor weather climate.... I'm reaching here though.
Replacing Aster 15 with CAAM(M) may indeed happen. I know the Type 26 and future ships like the C3 will aim to use CAAM(M) due to it's quad pack capability... Though using a cold launch system concerns me due to the inherent complexity involved with a mechanised launch, rotation with small thrusters and then engagement of the primary missile motor.... hot launched VLS works just fine because it is really quite simple.
If the Type 26 and C3 gain CAAM(M) then we may indeed see it as an upgrade on the QE class and the Type 45. Especially as you could effective reduce the number of short ranged missile cells to 8 but still have 24 CAAM(M). This would then allow 40 Aster 30 to be carried instead of 32. Coupled with SAMPSON you could then use the space for an additional 16 cells to install 16 A70 cells and Aster 30 block 2 for ABM capability.
But I'm rambling.
Thanks for the answer, I do recall reading that the QE class will have provision for some Aster 15's but that was an SDSR ago!
Thanks for the answer, I do recall reading that the QE class will have provision for some Aster 15's but that was an SDSR ago!
Yeah HM Government needs to ensure that SDSR's actually survive petty party politics between the different parties. Afterall defence should be a top priority for every single party.
Agree, though, didn't the Lib Dems want to scrap the Typhoons or something similar?
LOL the Lib Dems have Nick Harvey as their armed forces minister... That's all that needs to be said. He doesn't even understand what an aircraft carrier is, where they are or what they can do!!!
The Lib Dems have some good policies but their opinion in defence seems to be "If we play nice no-one will take our stuff from us". I always shake my head at that opinion. It inevitably means the school bully will pick on you and you'll probably end up dragging some good natured country into the mix as they attempt to keep you safe from your own niaviety