Arleigh Burke Class Concepts

bobbymike said:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...BuLuFA97wYv0XvrcyWaYmBgLtxFEpKPuPocQBc_2zbwAE
Click to expand...
That so fat and ugly
Looking at Type 055, big enough to carry multiple hypersonic missile, yet still elegant and stealthy
c944a609-54bf-4776-a13c-1ab321439c09_88c9dae6.jpg
 
Jimmo952 said:
Any idea what is behind the latest delay? It sure seems that we've forgotten how to design ships.
Click to expand...
Mix of several things, mostly Congress and lack of resources.

Going back to the late 2000s, the Navy was marketing both Zumwalt and CG(X) as a similar product, sharing common machinery, electronics, hull, powerplant, etc. So when Congress learned how much the Zumwalt program had ballooned in price (mostly due to Congressional mismanagement and reduced hull orders), they took this to mean CG(X) would suffer from the same issues the Zumwalt did, so they killed that around 2009 or so.

That left an obvious hole in the fleet though, the Ticos still needed to be replaced by the end of the 2010s. Designing a new hull would take too long (and Congress wouldn't allow it either), and the clock was ticking to get something to the yards quickly. The 2009 Radar/Hull Study examined 2 options for Tico replacement, a heavily modified Burke, or an AAW Zumwalt. Both options had several glaring issues, the Burke would need virtually a complete powerplant redesign to fit AMDR, and the Zumwalt would need years worth of programming work to either combine AEGIS with TSCE or remove TSCE entirely.

The Navy ultimately chose the heavily modernized Burke option, thinking it would be less risky and cheaper, but they seem to have underestimated just how extensive those changes would be. An AAW Zumwalt would also cause oddities in construction schedules, that would require retooling the yards. Flight III design took years, granted it was relatively on budget, but the design is... less than ideal in several metrics (namely the lack of SWAPC margin).

With the Flight III design underway, the Navy started looking at a clean-sheet design around 2014. This came in the form of the Future Surface Combatant (FSC) and Large Surface Combatant (LSC) programs. The issue though was that with the sudden change in policy towards fighting China, the Navy didn't really know what it wanted for a future design. That began dozens of different studies to first determine how to fight China, then the fleet architecture, then the future threats, then the future technologies, then the best ways to implement said technologies, etc. It seems only around 2019 or so did this work finish, and preliminary DDG(X) work could begin. I believe they said that the preliminary sketch work was just finished a few months ago.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Some people mentioned that it was originated from slide shows/display in SNA2022. I was quite surprised there are no further news after that show.
 
SK2 said:
Some people mentioned that it was originated from slide shows/display in SNA2022. I was quite surprised there are no further news after that show.
Click to expand...
They seem to have stopped posting the slideshows. They never posted the SNA2024 slides either, much to my dismay.
 
Well I know somewhere on this site someone posted the 4 1980s block 3 variants, with sizes and vls numbers. but I can't for the life of me find them again, but if someone can remember were that post was it sould probably be put in this thread as well.
 
Firefinder said:
Seventh post of this thread
Click to expand...
That isn't it, that was the final version, I'm talking about the 4 options discussed before they decided on that version, the post I'm talking about didn't have pictures as well, just a link I think.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I'm no shipbuilder, but should anyone start having concerns about topweight and stability here? Trying to fit 10 pounds into a 5 pound bag. Is that added superstructure of aluminum construction?
Click to expand...
I'm sure they've done the math here, but yeah, these ships are absolutely maxed out and may well need ballast.
 
My understanding is that a significant part of these new 'cheeks' is in fact empty space - an enclosure to make it easier to work on the SLQ-32(V)7 while the ship is underway. Though SLQ-32(V)7 is bulkier than past SLQ-32 versions, you can also still clearly see that it's not taking up the entire cheek and the enclosure is sort of a natural progression to what we've seen o DDG-125_acceptance_trials.jpg n older Burke's. Even if it's still ugly as sin.
 
The Navy is now preparing to open a design competition for the Future X-Band Radar (FXR) and planning for delivery of multiple low-rate initial production (LRIP) units by 2033. The Navy originally planned to replace the X-band SQB-9B (developed back in the late nineties) with the AMDR-X to partner the S-band SPY-6 but was cancelled due to claimed lack of funding at the time but a new gen X-band radar, now called the FXR, would be fitted from the 13th Burke Flt III onwards to replace the SQB-9B.
X-band has better definition (TPY-2 for THAAD, though very expensive) and Thales said at sea level has a tendency to stick to the surface whilst S-band does the opposite, making X-band useful in countering sea level anti-ship missiles etc.

https://insidedefense.com/insider/navy-prepares-open-competition-future-x-band-radar
 
As an SPQ-9 replacement, FXR isn't a long-range AMDR radar like THAAD's TPY-2. Rather, like the SPQ-9, it's basically a gap filler for low-altitude targets that might slip under the SPY-6. SPQ-9 started life as a gun fire control and periscope detection radar. It has expanded to handle sea-skimming missiles. FXR may improve on that for things like drone detection and possibly HVP guidance, but it's still a small radar.
 
Sferrin said:
What's up with the muffin top? Are our ships getting fat too? Jesus.
Click to expand...
That a F you You not even locking on with Home on Jam, level EWAR gear needs to be that big for cooling reasons with a side of making it easier to service.

It what happens when ones kill the next gen design for a already 30 year old one 10 years ago.


Also looks more like when you dog gets stung by a bee in the face.
 
If you're looking to increase the number of VLS tubes, can you remove the five-inch gun on the Flight I's and replace with a 32 cell VLS? That would equal the number of cells on a Ticonderoga class. And maybe squeeze in a Mk 46 turret to deal with surface threats.
 
funkychinaman said:
If you're looking to increase the number of VLS tubes, can you remove the five-inch gun on the Flight I's and replace with a 32 cell VLS? That would equal the number of cells on a Ticonderoga class. And maybe squeeze in a Mk 46 turret to deal with surface threats.
Click to expand...

Not readily as a retrofit. The way a Mk 45 gun is installed means there are compartments around the gun that would have to be relocated. Most notably Combat Systems Equipment Room #1 sits between the loading drum room and the magazine.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom