Aegis vs TSCE-I

Well this is really a question about Aegis.
What is it and what makes it so special.

Admittedly my knowledge regarding these systems revolve mostly around wikipedia. According to the description

"The Aegis Combat System (ACS) is an advanced command and control (command and decision, or C&D, in Aegis parlance) and weapon control system (WCS) that uses powerful computers and radars to track and guide weapons to destroy enemy targets."

But if thats the case, shouldn't all guided missile destroyers have a counterpart system?
Maybe with less powerful sensors and less effective missiles but a counterpart non the less.

So I searched for the Zummwalt class and why it doesn't have it.
Turns out Zummwalt has a more advanced radar, if I'm not mistaken its the first AESA on a ship? is that right by the way?

so with a better primary sensor, doesn't that give Zummwalt's TSCE-I system a the edge over the PESA bassed Aegis?

Then why are there so many criticisms on Zummwalt's BMD capabilities?

Aegis (an LM product) was new in that it fused data from other ships & planes.

The Zumwalt has TSCEI (a Raytheon product) that does the same thing while bringing it up to current standards of open-architecture, middle-ware, Linux backbone, etc.

Https://www.rti.com/news/raytheon
http://investor.raytheon.com/phoenix.zh ... ID=1069491

okay so TSCE-I has a more advanced radar, open architecture, more modern components all around.
Why isn't it considered better than Aegis? Am I missing something?

I am sure Raytheon does consider it better.

Keep in mind that Aegis is a stable and known quantity so it will take a while for TSCE-I to become a "household name". It doesn't help that you can say "Aegis" but just try to pronounce TSCE-I...

Tiskee-eye?

Is TSCE-I a dead end given that the Zumwalt class will be only three ships with a questionable role? It seems like all the development dollars are going to the Aegis and many foreign navies are using Aegis on their ships (Australia, Spain, Norway, ...)

AMDR on the Flight III AB Destroyers is where it's at. GaN.

https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/amdr

I am probably confusing the radar with the system though.

Well okay, is it okay for me to assume that TSCEI is simply an alternative to AEGIS?
They can do each other's tasks with varying degrees of efficiency and effective.

for example an F-15E and an F-16C. If you think about it, both planes are interchangeable, yes the Mudhen can carry more and F-16C is more nimble and cheaper to maintain and operate, both planes are better than the other in its own way but if you really needed to cut out of them you can because the F-15E can do any task the F-16C can do and vice versa.

Well okay, is it okay for me to assume that TSCEI is simply an alternative to AEGIS?
They can do each other's tasks with varying degrees of efficiency and effective.

If more money was spent on TSCEI, the growth potential is definitely there to equal AEGIS. But as the Zumwalt class was reduced to three ships, I doubt much money is being spent on TSCEI. Honestly, I have no idea about the war fighting capabilities of USS Zumwalt. Can it provide fleet anti-air defense? Who knows? Such a feature was planned at some point but I don't know if the money was invested in the software. This is from an old article (most articles on the Zumwalt class are old)

Vice Admiral Barry McCullough On 31 July 2008 (deputy chief of naval operations for integration of resources and capabilities) and Allison Stiller, deputy assistant secretary of the navy for ship programs stated that "the DDG 1000 cannot perform area air defense; specifically, it cannot successfully employ the Standard Missile-2 (SM-2), SM-3 or SM-6. It is not clear if the Standard Missile capability will be integrated into the Zumwalt-class destroyer or not.

What combat software does the CVN USS Ford use?

Well okay, is it okay for me to assume that TSCEI is simply an alternative to AEGIS?
They can do each other's tasks with varying degrees of efficiency and effective.

for example an F-15E and an F-16C. If you think about it, both planes are interchangeable, yes the Mudhen can carry more and F-16C is more nimble and cheaper to maintain and operate, both planes are better than the other in its own way but if you really needed to cut out of them you can because the F-15E can do any task the F-16C can do and vice versa.

I wouldn't go this far...

No F-16C I'm aware of can handle the deep strike mission like the Beagle. In addition to not having the gas nor weapons carrying capability, the F-16's lack an air to ground radar in the same class as the -15E. If the air force thought the F-16C could handle the mission, it would have never bought the F-15E. And it would have never even entertained a scaled up F-16(XL).

But the USAF did, for a reason

I wouldn't go this far...

No F-16C I'm aware of can handle the deep strike mission like the Beagle. In addition to not having the gas nor weapons carrying capability, the F-16's lack an air to ground radar in the same class as the -15E. If the air force thought the F-16C could handle the mission, it would have never bought the F-15E. And it would have never even entertained a scaled up F-16(XL).

But the USAF did, for a reason

Well thats what I meant. There are things that the F-15E can do a little better, there are things that the F-16C can do better.

Because the USA has so much resources, you can afford to have both. But if you were another country, you wouldn't say that you have no Strike capabilities because you only have F-16Cs and not F-15Es.

But why are they saying that the Zumwalt class cannot perform BMD or A2AD. Its like saying F-16s can't perform strike missions.