Talk:Aegis combat system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of Computing WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to computers and computing. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Australia

The article says Australia decided to order in November 2004... since we got August 2004 now, how can this be? -- Tomcat 09:42, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I meant 2003, whoops. -Joseph 11:04, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)
Alright. ;) -- Tomcat 14:11, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] AEGIS Was never an acronym.

I moved the article and de-capitalised Aegis, because it's not an acronym. Grant65 (Talk) 16:17, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but the Navy refers to it as such, and most Google hits show it as such. -Joseph (Talk) 18:18, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)
In fact US military sites use both forms, sometimes on the same page.[1] Grant65 (Talk) 00:44, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
Heaven forbid the user and responsible agency for a system dictate the nomenclature. -Joseph (Talk) 21:41, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

I'm sure the US military uses capitals for many words that no-one one else does. That doesn't mean that it's good English.Grant65 (Talk) 23:12, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Grammatical rules do not apply to proper names. Period. -Joseph (Talk) 00:36, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

Yes they do. If Wikipedia followed everyone's idiosyncracies, what would it look like? Grant65 (Talk) 03:28, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

While I do agree that Wikipedia should set its own standards, in this case, AEGIS is most certainly an acronym. I worked on AEGIS for a number of years. It honestly has multiple expansions but it certainly an acronym. I'm going to update the page appropriately. I'll appeal to a book I have on the US Naval Fleet "Modern U.S. Navy Destroyers" as a reference for the change. AnthonyLiguori

For the record, Aegis, was never an acronym. The system is simply named after the mythical shield. And is also known as 'the Shield of the Fleet'

Are you sure? When I searched for "Airborne Early Warning Ground Environment Integration Segment" (The Acronym the German page mentions) I found (among other stuff) the following pages:
Maybe it is a Backcronym? 130.123.225.69 22:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


Having worked for LM in Moorestown I can confirm that, as of circa 2000 *or earlier*, Aegis has not been all caps. Correct spelling is found on the Lockheed Martin web site. Recalling further: "Aegis" was the winning suggestion in a competition to name the system; however, I have no reference for this statement. Searching reveals one of potentially several backronyms: Advanced Electronic Guidance Information System. In research, it may be helpful to know that Aegis was developed by RCA and partners (notably CSC), and that GE, and then Martin Marietta, acquired the development and manufacturing facilities. Martin Marietta acquired Lockheed Corporation in 1995 (from my understanding).

Yep, and "Airborne Early Warning Ground Environment Integration Segment" must be a different system, since there ain't nothing "airborne" about the subject of this article. So it's not even a backronym. I have reverted in the interests of preventing people from USING CAPITALS WHENEVER THEY FEEL THAT SOMETHING IS SO IMPORTANT THAT IT NEEDS THEM ;-) Grant65 (Talk) 13:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
The initialism reported for AEGIS does seem suspicious. Googling fails to come up with any independent sources, although this may only reflect the system's age (circa 1969). It does feel like it refers rather to, maybe, a software part of GCCS (which parts are called "segments")...
Urhixidur 00:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
There were in fact, two separate and roughly contemporaneous systems, one of whose names was an acronym, one of whose names was not. RCA's Missile and Surface Radar Division developed the US Navy's Aegis, which is indeed named after the shield of Zeus and was never an acronym; although my coffee cup from 1975 shows the name "AEGIS" in all caps so the "mistaken" capitalization is quite old. But the name of the Navy's system was never an acronym. Hughes Aircraft Company had a very different contract (several contracts, actually) to develop various versions of an AEGIS (Airborne Early Warning Ground Environment Integration Segment) for NATO. Note: NATO AEGIS much preceded GCCS; the use of the term "segment" was generic in those days. The NATO AEGIS was the system to integrate NATO's E-3 AWACS data with its ADGE (Air Defense Ground Environment) systems. I am one of very few engineers to work on both, working for RCA on Navy Aegis from late 1974 to late 1976 and then moving to Hughes Aircraft Company in 1976, although I was not assigned to NATO AEGIS until several years later. I was at Hughes when the Navy sent us (Hughes) what I recall as being a rather peremptory letter directing us to re-name "our" AEGIS since they (the Navy) had already used that name. The Hughes program manager wrote back a very mild letter to the effect that it was not within his power to do that and they could take it up with NATO if they wished, whose address he supplied. 69.92.10.205 (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC) Matt
Interestingly, this site, which belongs to Stasys, a Lockheed-Martin company, mentions "EGIS = Erieye Ground Interface Segment". The Erieye is 1 a long range Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) system; the Swedish Air Force operates it on the Saab 340B Argus aircraft, and Greece and Brazil had it integrated on the Brazilian Embraer EMB-145 ERIEYE 2. Pakistan is interested in a Saab-2000 version 3, Malaysia is also interested 4, and several others (India, etc.). Maybe this EGIS got conflated with the Aegis system?
Urhixidur 00:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The history of the AEGIS Combat System, actually it is more appropriately the AEGIS Weapon System (AWS), Mk 7 Mods 1 though 14. AEGIS is not an acronym, it is the name of Zeus's shield and the name was proposed and given in ~1969 by then Captain Wayne Meyer, USN, aka the "Father of AEGIS". RADM Meyer (Ret) was the project manager for the development of the AEGIS Weapon System at what was originally known as Program Management System Command - 400 (PMS 400).

I have information from Lockheed Martin that the name AEGIS was given after an internal US Navy naming contest was initiated. CAPT L. J. Stecher, a former Tartar Weapon System manager, submitted the winning suggestion, also including an acronym of Advanced Electronic Guided Interceptor System with his submission. This acronym, or any of the suggested acronyms for AEGIS, was never used by the AEGIS Program. However, it did resurface at least once in an article in the August 1978 issue of Morskoy Sbornik, the Soviet equivalent to the U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings. This information is from an RCA developed history of the AEGIS program from 1986. Hydrant 12:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

We need a book or a reliable weblink for the Stecher anecdote. As of now it is not independently verifiable. I'd expect someone will want evidence that it didn't originate from Meyer. After all, they named the Aegis training center after Meyer in Dahlgren, VA. --Dual Freq 11:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me see what I can do. I'll ask around and see if I can upload something. I understand the citation I added is not independently verifiable, but it is valid. The presentation itself references a document called "An AEGIS History" which was an internal RCA presentation/paper on the history of the program. I searched the web on both accounts and could find nothing on either topic. RADM Meyer just visited Lockheed Martin less than a month ago to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the AEGIS Combat System Engineering Development Site (CSEDS). We could have gotten the info directly from the horse's mouth! Hydrant 13:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
It sure would be nice to have a GFDL licensed image of the cornfield cruiser for wikipedia, if you happen to have a digital camera. I suppose the image of the Wallops Island facility would be fine, kind of small though.[2] --Dual Freq 04:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I can get you one quite easily. Unfortunately, I'll be in Japan for a few weeks. Look for one in July. A good page on CSEDS would be a nice add to wikipedia too.Hydrant 01:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Four MW of what?

this high-powered (four megawatt) radar is able to perform search, track and missile guidance functions simultaneously

does this mean 4 MW radiated power or 4MW consumed power? and why do aegis ships carry four (CG-47 class) or three (DDG-51 class) AN/SPG-62 Illuminators? just for backup? Gorbalad 22:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The AN/SPG-62 radars are used for terminal guidance of missles. This means that the maximum numbers of targets that can be engaged simultaneously is four for the Ticonderoga class and three for the Arleigh Burke class [3] DarthJesus 04:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

User's comment was removed due to possible security classification issues. --Hydrant 01:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] taiwan

This article makes no mention of taiwanese attempts to acquire the aegis

[edit] AEGIS redirect page

AEGIS currently redirects to this article. I wanted to add a link to Aegis (disambiguation) to the start of this article, but that obviously doesn't make sense. So perhaps AEGIS should redirect to the disambiguation page instead? Especially if it's not really an acronym, anyway. StuartBrady 22:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thermal Imaging

Has anyone else seen the Navy recruiting commercial where they essentially imply that Aegis can produce thermal images of a fly from space? I think perhaps that also belongs in the "Aegis in Fiction" section of the article. Such propaganda! CharacterZero 13:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen it, but perhaps they are referring to battlefield links to reconsats? Those are a reality. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 14:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] China has Aegis?

I'm pretty sure this is inaccurate. China may now have a phased array radar system, but there's no *way* they have something based off of the US Aegis system. -Dolemite17 01:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Still, it's not Aegis, simply copied from it. Should at least have something so folks don't think it's a real Aegis, such as the Japanese have. I've edited accordingly.

  • Cool. Thanks for the insight. --Dolemite17 18:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


The Magizine Popular Mechanics states it is a 100% knock-off [[4]] Red1530 02:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  • "Federal sources insist that the only way the relatively backward Chinese military could have developed such a system was by copying it." - That's pretty presumptuous. --Cheese Sandwich 03:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but that's about as ridiculous as it gets. There is no evidence (other than arrogant presumption on the part of some idiot at PM) that the Chinese military had any way of getting any kind of access to such maximally classified information. Just because a new Chinese ship which comes out and has four planar arrays doesn't mean it was copied from US ships. Besides the physical appearance, there is no information about what kind of radar it actually is (whether AESA as sources suggest or PESA ala SPY-1), and more importantly no information about kind of combat information system the radar employs. All you have is a new ship with four planar arrays that bears a 'passing' resemblance to an Arleigh Burke, kind of like how a Su-27 bears a 'passing' resemblance to an F-15 (in that they are both airplanes), or like how some random human bears a 'passing' resemblance to any another random human.

Regardless of whether or not it is Aegis, I wouldn't take the idea of China having a waterbased phased array fire control radar system too lightly. Even if the Chinese matched specifications of Aegis from unclassified sources such as the internet and Jane's, they are a formidable foe. Jojoislost 06:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Number of Targets

I can't find a reference that Aegis can do 200 targets at once. The best I can find is 'over 100'. I'll keep searching for a bit but if I can't do better I'm changing it to over 100. If you can find a better reference please return to the higher number.Logicnazi 10:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It can do more - 1024 or 2048 depending on the software baseline is probably more correct, but I can't provide a reference. A FFG-7 non-Aegis can track 256 targets, and I know the Aegis weapon system is much more capable than that. Otherwise Aegis, designed to defeat saturation missile attacks, would be easily overwhelmed if all it could track was just over 100 targets. When you look at the radar screen on an Aegis warship and see, say 100 airborne radar contacts, Aegis has already computed a firing solution for ALL 100 tracks and can engage any one of them, all you have to do is tell it to engage. When you look at the radar screen on a non-Aegis warship, no firing solution has been computed for any of them yet, you have to select the radar track and "engage." A separate radar then has to locate the target in question, acquire it, and then compute a firing solution, then you can engage.Skysailor 07:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The answer to this question depends on how you define "Aegis". If you are asking about simply the number of targets which the SPY-1 radar can track, then the answer is well over 100. However, when deployed, the AEGIS Weapon System (AWS) has other sensors which can contribute a significant number of tracks to the overall picture (such as GCCS-M, IFF, various surface search radars and electronic warfare detection systems, and TADILs). So, if you are asking about the total number of these tracks, the answer is significantly larger than the first. --Hydrant 01:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iran Air Section Biased

Iran Air 655 Section was overly biased, modified to tabulate investigation report. Multiple times states that human psychology and personnel along with international miscommunication contributed to event. AEGIS system worked perfectly and flawless and aided in a huge amount toward the investigation because every single button pushed and all data was recorded. (The weapons officers hit the engage button about 20 times before realizing and told by fellow personnel he was required to hit the Standard Missile button first. AEGIS works but required competent crew to man it and analyze the data.

For some additional detail, see P. Neumann; "[Aegis, Vincennes, and the Iranian Airbus];"ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes; Vol. 14, No. 5; July, 1989. 69.92.10.205 (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Matt

[edit] Aegis in other navies + Aegis Ship Totals

I was thinking about putting these two sections together. Does anyone object? Hydrant 02:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indigenous AEGIS in other navies?

Does any other navy have indigenous AEGIS-like system? What about the Russian Navy? BTW Japan must have the tech to build their own AEGIS. Why did they buy one from the US?Rad vsovereign 15:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cooking popcorn

Can these really cook popcorn? http://www.storg.net/view/index.php?0087 Anyone to verify/debunk that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.7.161.226 (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)