Military Review

Thirty-year-old American cruiser got the latest version of the Aegis system

19
The American Ticonderoga cruiser has become the foremost ship of the American fleet. According to navaltoday.com, the U.S. Navy tested the Aegis baseeline 9 system on a thirty-year USS Mobile Bay ship.


Last year, the cruiser USS Mobile Bay was sent to finalize its combat system Aegis - the previous version (baseeline 8) was updated to the latest baseeline 9.

Thirty-year-old American cruiser got the latest version of the Aegis system


During testing, two SM-2 anti-aircraft missiles and one anti-ship ESSM were launched from the cruiser. According to the press service of the US Navy, the testing tasks were successfully completed, the capabilities of the updated fire control system, as well as “some new functions” were confirmed.

Aegis is an American naval multipurpose combat information and control system, which is an integrated network of means of control, control and destruction. The system allows you to receive and process information from sensors of other ships and aircraft, passing the coordinates of targets to their launchers. Today, the Aegis is used by the naval forces of the United States, Spain, Norway, the Republic of Korea, Australia and Japan (in total, it has more than 100 ships equipped).

USS Mobile Bay is the seventh ship in a series of 27 Ticonderoga-type missile cruisers built for the US Navy. Cruisers of this type were the first ships in the US fleet equipped with the Aegis system. Mobile Bay was laid in the summer of 1984 of the year; it was accepted into the US Navy on February 21 of the year. Ticonderoga-type cruisers are armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles, ASROC anti-submarine missiles, and SM-1987 and SM-2 anti-aircraft missiles. The total displacement of ships of this type is 3 t, length - 9800 m, width - 172 m, transmits "Warspot"
Photos used:
navaltoday.com
19 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Dezinto
    Dezinto 9 November 2017 14: 16 New
    13
    oh my god how ugly he is.
    Of course, beauty is not the main thing in technology, but damn it really reminds me of my hanging tank in the country))
    We saw our cruiser type "Orlan". Here is a comparison. This is beauty!

    1. 210ox
      210ox 9 November 2017 14: 17 New
      +5
      This "freak" carries a rather sickly arsenal ..
      Quote: DEZINTO
      oh my god how ugly he is.
      Of course, beauty is not the main thing in technology, but damn it really reminds me of my hanging tank in the country))
      1. Dezinto
        Dezinto 9 November 2017 14: 20 New
        0
        This "freak" carries a rather sickly arsenal ..


        Yes, of course it is .....
      2. Burbon
        Burbon 9 November 2017 16: 42 New
        +1
        Quote: 210ox
        oh my god how ugly he is.

        it’s not a matter of beauty ... but of the function that he successfully fulfills .... and our Peter is more and more at the wall or in the Barents .... here he went to Syria and probably before spring it is unlikely to go further than 300 miles from the coast .. . sorry ... he would have furrowed the Sargas Sea with a kuzey, a couple of apl and two BOD ... tired? - to Havana ..... and so the whole year ....
      3. xetai9977
        xetai9977 9 November 2017 17: 40 New
        0
        "oh my god how ugly he is"
        Military equipment is not being built for the podium, but for war. This "freak" is quite suitable for battle, and this is the main thing ..
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 9 November 2017 15: 57 New
      +2
      Quote: DEZINTO
      We saw our cruiser type "Orlan". Here is a comparison. This is beauty!

      The ambush is that the beautiful "Orlan" was built only 4. And the "ugly" "Tick" - as much as 27.
      Maybe the Soviet Union should not chase the prodigy?
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 9 November 2017 16: 12 New
      +1
      In general, the URO is to blame for everything. smile
      Look what the rockets did to the handsome Chicago-based CRT:

    4. Normal ok
      Normal ok 9 November 2017 17: 20 New
      +2
      Quote: DEZINTO
      oh my god how ugly he is

      If there is nothing to say in essence, they talk about appearance ....
    5. ZVO
      ZVO 9 November 2017 20: 23 New
      +2
      Quote: DEZINTO
      oh my god how ugly he is.
      Of course, beauty is not the main thing in technology, but damn it really reminds me of my hanging tank in the country))
      We saw our cruiser type "Orlan". Here is a comparison. This is beauty!


      Why is he handsome?
      The fact that 100500 antenna posts are scattered across all the masts?
      And if in the event of a mass attack all the pair of some sort of "small" missiles break through?
      some 300 kilogram ALRAAM or Harm or Standard-3?
      To take Orlan out of battle, a couple of remote explosions of fragmentation warheads of ZUR or PRLR is enough - and Orlan leaves the battle. Becomes completely unworkable. For all his eyes and ears, the entire antenna part will be completely swept away by fragments.

      in the division into 4 segments of the AFAR, it is just the real combat fault tolerance and the ship will retain combat capability even on 1-2-3 segments of the radar.
      In reducing the number of ugly add-ons - laid down a decrease in radar visibility. The same icing ... a trifle like - but it interferes

      So it’s better to think with your head and not write nonsense ...
      I don’t see the beauty in Orlan. I see that our shipbuilders and strategists could not analyze and plan anything in those years. no real perspective thought on the development of weapon trends.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 10 November 2017 11: 11 New
        +1
        Quote: ZVO
        To take Orlan out of battle, a couple of remote explosions of fragmentation warheads of ZUR or PRLR is enough - and Orlan leaves the battle. Becomes completely unworkable. For all his eyes and ears, the entire antenna part will be completely swept away by fragments.
        in the division into 4 segments of the AFAR, it is just the real combat fault tolerance and the ship will retain combat capability even on 1-2-3 segments of the radar.

        In this case, the "tiki" after the only remote detonation warhead PRR immediately flies out half of the horizon - 2 panels PAR. And half the radar target illumination. After such a hit, only R2D2 will be able to work in the "dead" sectors.
        At 1144 radars are "smeared" in half the ship. And, EMNIP, each air defense system can operate autonomously from its own radars.
        EMNIP, for Kuzin / Nikolsky, the domestic tendency of "incomplete integration" was condemned on the one hand - "excessive duplication and clusters of radar" - and on the other hand it was said that such a system provides greater survivability due to the fact that the air defense systems retain the ability to work in autonomous mode.
  2. 210ox
    210ox 9 November 2017 14: 16 New
    +1
    I hope that this and the previous news will not baffle our developers and sailors.
    1. Galleon
      Galleon 9 November 2017 15: 00 New
      +8
      Sailors do not get into a dead end, they just do their job to the end. And the task of science and industry is to make this end either more authentic or not to come at all. Such a layout.
  3. Tsoy
    Tsoy 9 November 2017 14: 49 New
    0
    one anti-ship essm


    Isn't it an anti-aircraft missile?
    1. Veteran
      Veteran 9 November 2017 19: 15 New
      +4
      RIM-162 ESSM is a typical shipborne SAM (ship-to-air), one class with our 9М96. In principle, it is possible to shoot missiles at a surface target, but it will not become “anti-ship”. Maybe they messed up something. Have they got the Harpoons completely removed from the stern? If not, why shoot at the SC anti-aircraft?
  4. NIKNN
    NIKNN 9 November 2017 15: 05 New
    +5
    got me latest version Aegis systems
    Windows 2018? belay licensed now .. smile
  5. Beby
    Beby 9 November 2017 18: 27 New
    +4
    I read several times that cruisers such as Ticonderoga periodically have cracks in their settings and decks (such as due to the use of aluminum alloys), which leads to the need for unpleasant repair and restoration procedures. And then suddenly a potentially problematic cruiser was modernized ...
    Can someone tell me: the USA was able to defeat the problem of cracking on Ticonderoga's, or this smaller Aegis baseeline 9 just does not fit on smaller destroyers (like Arleigh Burke)?
    1. Pan_hrabio
      Pan_hrabio 9 November 2017 18: 52 New
      +2
      They didn’t completely decide, but their ships are likely to serve.

      If possible, the Yankees strengthen the structure, apply special welding methods (Ultrasonic Impact Treatment), try to extend the life of their Ticonderoges until 2028. However, there are serious suspicions that the number of cruisers will begin to decline smoothly in the coming years - the Crack Plague epidemic (the plague of cracking) leaves the sailors no other choice.


      https://topwar.ru/35058-kreysery-gibnut-bez-boya.
      html
  6. Old26
    Old26 9 November 2017 18: 59 New
    +2
    Quote: DEZINTO
    oh my god how ugly he is.
    Of course, beauty is not the main thing in technology, but damn it really reminds me of my hanging tank in the country))
    We saw our cruiser type "Orlan". Here is a comparison. This is beauty!

    Yeah. Beautiful. But only we could make 4 of these beauties, and now, if they upgrade, then THREE, and the Americans made 27 of these freaks, some have already been written off in time, but still there are more than 20. And in our ranks of “beauties” there are ONE. .. Damn, but sometimes you shouldn’t fool it. It would be clear if we would build 27, and they are 4 and they would now have 1 against EMNIP 22 "Tick". And so yes, already swelling with pride
  7. Altona
    Altona 10 November 2017 10: 34 New
    0
    Quote: Old26
    Damn, but you shouldn’t do it sometimes. It would be clear if we would build 27, and they are 4 and they would now have 1 against EMNIP 22 "Tick". And so yes, already swelling with pride

    -----------------------------------------
    So you need to build, no one is against. And then the construction of the corvette for us is already such a big time problem. And the American boat really looks like a trough. With regards to new American ships, the new platforms they already have are too expensive, because on board: 1) A bunch of expensive electronics; 2) Additional energy capacities (what if they put a railgun or a laser-maser laser); 3) Additional comfort for the crew, toilets and baby rooms for invigorating sailors. winked