DDG(X) - Arleigh Burke Replacement

6 crew on the gun loading? Its like WW2! Why would they not switch to an autoloader? Not like modern navies don't have recruitment issues.

At least until a new mount is available. But sounds like traverse speed is a big problem.

Mushroom farms on a new ship or comparing with existing ones? But Mk-41 timing limits would also affect CAMM inserts, so maybe better to use dedicated ExLS instead of inserts. Presume ALBATROS is dedicated launchers.

Thats a pretty good system.
The gun itself is auto loaded. Feeding the auto loader is done manually…do you have any idea how large a 5” deep mag on a Burke is? The automation necessary is possible but it would be ridiculously complicated and require a lot of man hours of maintenance, and you still have to have the man power on board in case the automated feeding mechanism breaks.

As to my question earlier, a deep mag is around d 700-1000sq feet.
 
Physics is still physics. The basics of artillery barrel wear have not changed in most of century AFAIK. You can provide active cooling to change that (eg the cancelled Crusader system) but gun barrels get hot.

I feel like the original point of my argument has now been taken wildly out of context: a poster stated that a 5” mount could continuously fire at 20 rounds/minute for ~40 minutes (the full 680 round magazine) until the ammunition the ship was exhausted, and I disagree. And based on some of the information posted here, I still disagree that is a physical possibility.

I consider the issue closed.
Yes a 5” gun can shoot for 40 minutes straight.

If you were talking about barrel wear rather than over heating, then it doesn’t matter how long you shoot for. 40 minutes x 20 rpm=800 rounds.
A 5” gun barrel can handle 8000 rounds, assuming you haven’t already fired 7200 or more rounds through it previously.

I literally shared an example with a source of mk42 and mk45 5” guns shooting more or less for an hour and a half continuously 40 years ago. We literally know that’s possible…

Edit
I looked on YouTube and can only find 2 videos showing people uploading in the deep mag.
I was able to see one person’s name tape, being a GM2 it’s very unlikely it was ‘training’ between that, the pace, body language, and the color of the projos being loaded in that one I can almost guarantee that wasn’t video wasn’t taken as at sea training, or even in port training, but uploading to the mount’s ready drum.

The other was a short, it still didn’t show anyone moving with a purpose, but since they were loading BL&P projos into the hoist that may have been during a PAC fire. (Though no sound of the gun firing, and no shaking on camera makes me think it was just topping the drum off after a PAC fire rather than legitimate training.)
 
Last edited:
The gun itself is auto loaded. Feeding the auto loader is done manually…do you have any idea how large a 5” deep mag on a Burke is? The automation necessary is possible but it would be ridiculously complicated and require a lot of man hours of maintenance, and you still have to have the man power on board in case the automated feeding mechanism breaks.

The Mk 45 Ammunition Handling System on the RN Type 26 does exactly this. We'll see how it works, but they're doing it. My sense is that if it fails, well, you've got 20 rounds or so in the drum.

View: https://youtu.be/u1msIqd0t8w?si=68sCN7ScEZdlFNYl
 
The Mk 45 Ammunition Handling System on the RN Type 26 does exactly this. We'll see how it works, but they're doing it. My sense is that if it fails, well, you've got 20 rounds or so in the drum.

View: https://youtu.be/u1msIqd0t8w?si=68sCN7ScEZdlFNYl

Yeah, great you have a minute of shooting if it fails.

I’m sure the Marines ashore will really appreciate that, or the air threats coming in will slow down to allow other weapon systems to step up to engage them.
 
Trivia time for Arleigh Burkes regarding guns and missiles.

Flights I, II, and IIA use the AN/SPY-1D PESA 3D radar. Flight III uses the AN/SPY-6(V)1 AESA 3D radar. SPY-1 or SPY-6 provide the 5" gun its information for fusing. AN/SPS-67 (DDG-51 – DDG-86) and AN/SPQ-9B (on DDG-119 and onward) can augment the main radar for engagement of a surface target. Thirty Arleigh Burkes still have 5-inch/62-caliber Mark 45 guns that are not Mod 4, and depend on the Mk 46 optical sight system for fire control. Forty four Arleigh Burkes have the Mod 4's, and forty of the them use the same Mk 46 optical sight system. Only three Arleigh Burkes have the Mk 20 electro-optical sight system. Both LCS programs and Legend class cutters also use the Mk 20 electro-optical sight system. The Mark 45 Mod 4 can fire a munition called the Cargo Round, which gives the Mod 4 a range of over 20 nautical miles (37 km). For long range ship defense they can engage with semi-active radar homing (SARH) Standard SM-2 (RIM-66 SM-2MR or RIM-156 SM-2ER Block IV). Most ships in this class carry RIM-162 ESSM Block 2's for shorter ranges that also use active radar homing. Due to ships only having three AN/SPG-62 X band continuous wave fire-control radars for terminal target illumination, up to three targets may be simultaneously intercepted. RIM-161 SM-3 SAM also depends on the AN/SPG-62 for terminal guidance but AN/SPY-1 radar handles mid-course guidance. RIM-174 Standard ERAM can use AN/SPG-62 with its dual-mode seeker, but also uses active radar homing. RIM-161 and RIM-174 are the primary options against hypersonic weapons. RIM-161 can handle exo-atmospheric targets, but RIM-174 is limited to endo-atmospheric targets. Missiles that get past the SAMs can be engaged by the 5" gun, 20 mm Phalanx CIWS, and RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM). RIM-116 depends on a Mk 49 Guided Missile Launching System (GMLS) for targeting and Mk-144 Guided Missile Launcher (GML) for storage. Mk-144 stores 21 RIM-116 missiles. SeaRAM uses the Mk-15 Block 1B (CRDC) from the Phalanx and the 20 mm M61 Vulcan rotary cannon is replaced by an 11-cell RAM launcher to produce an autonomous system—one which does not need any external information to engage threats. SeaRAM is being back fit to older Arleigh Burkes. The more recent Optical Dazzling Interdictor, Navy (aka ODIN) has shown some promise against drones, but is deployed on very few Arleigh Burkes. The Mark 38 machine gun system (MGS) using the 25 mm M242 Bushmaster can also be used manually as a final layer of defense, but has an inability to elevate higher than 55 degrees.

DDG(X) as a minimum will likely continue on where Flight IIIs are at currently.
 
Yeah, great you have a minute of shooting if it fails.

I’m sure the Marines ashore will really appreciate that, or the air threats coming in will slow down to allow other weapon systems to step up to engage them.
No manual backup?
 
Yeah, great you have a minute of shooting if it fails.

I’m sure the Marines ashore will really appreciate that, or the air threats coming in will slow down to allow other weapon systems to step up to engage them.
Well, five minutes in the case of the engagement you cited. Or the other two ships in the group step up their rate of fire from four rounds per minute to six while you fix the problem.

Yeah, there's always going to be something that can fail. If it's the ammunition handling system, you've got 20 rounds in the drum to figure out a solution. If it's the powered rammer, you've got the round that's already in the breech. That doesn't have a manual backup either.

So far as providing sufficient crew to provide manual backups to everything is concerned - that will significantly increase the crew size. When recruitment is a serious problem for Western militaries, and the majority of the lifetime cost of a ship is in its crew, it's not unreasonable to suggest that the choice might be one ship (and gun) with all the backups, or two ships (and guns) dependent on automation.
 
If you need a manual backup for your 5 inch gun in this day and age, your ship is already sinking or is about to sink.
Of there was a malfunction in the auto loader…my last deployment each of my mk38s went down at at the console at different times. One needed a video card replaced, and one had a single bad wire in the cable go bad.
They could still be fired from the mount, just not from the console.

It’s absolutely stupid not to have manual loading capability as a back up.
 
Of there was a malfunction in the auto loader…my last deployment each of my mk38s went down at at the console at different times. One needed a video card replaced, and one had a single bad wire in the cable go bad.
They could still be fired from the mount, just not from the console.

It’s absolutely stupid not to have manual loading capability as a back up.

Who says they don't? The descriptions of the AHS mention that the ship would still carry additional rounds in bulk stowage that would be manually reloaded into the AHS between engagements. That suggests that if the autoloader does go U/S in action, you certainly can get a crew together and feed the hoist manually. But those people will have to come from somewhere else on the ship.
 
Who says they don't? The descriptions of the AHS mention that the ship would still carry additional rounds in bulk stowage that would be manually reloaded into the AHS between engagements. That suggests that if the autoloader does go U/S in action, you certainly can get a crew together and feed the hoist manually. But those people will have to come from somewhere else on the ship.
I was replying to a very specific post discounting the importance of the ability to manually load.
 
Who says they don't? The descriptions of the AHS mention that the ship would still carry additional rounds in bulk stowage that would be manually reloaded into the AHS between engagements. That suggests that if the autoloader does go U/S in action, you certainly can get a crew together and feed the hoist manually. But those people will have to come from somewhere else on the ship.
Remember that there's a huge difference between "number of crew necessary for operating the ship per watch" and "number of crew for battlestations."

I would fully expect that there's a team assigned to reload the AHS from bulk stowage while you're fighting.
 
Remember that there's a huge difference between "number of crew necessary for operating the ship per watch" and "number of crew for battlestations."

I would fully expect that there's a team assigned to reload the AHS from bulk stowage while you're fighting.
A youtube interview is out there talking about reduced crew size and its impact / repurcussions for rotating watch duty assignments.

View: https://youtu.be/Lbo5rXfFe0M?t=760
 
Last edited:
Ladies and gentlemen, BBG(X) has been investigated by Congress, so is there still hope for DDG(X)?
 
Ladies and gentlemen, BBG(X) has been investigated by Congress, so is there still hope for DDG(X)?
It was announced with BBGX that DDGX funding had been moved to fund BBGX.

Does the US still need to also design a "DDGY"? yes.
 
It was announced with BBGX that DDGX funding had been moved to fund BBGX.

Does the US still need to also design a "DDGY"? yes.
I think the basic version of a DDG (I'm calling it the Z for now) might have a mission bay and stern ramp for drones. Less radar, perhaps more sonar, the concept being more multipurpose than the main AAW defence destroyers.
 
I think the basic version of a DDG (I'm calling it the Z for now) might have a mission bay and stern ramp for drones. Less radar, perhaps more sonar, the concept being more multipurpose than the main AAW defence destroyers.
I'm torn between doing the older ASW-focused DD and AAW-focused DDG as two separate slightly less expensive classes or a single DDG that has all the parts for both ASW and AAW.
Right now we are effectively running single-DDG, but one that isn't great at ASW. Probably competent enough, but not to the ASW levels achieved in the Zumwalts. Burke IIIs do have a good hull sonar and a good VDS, but what they lack is modern quieting. There's also some adjustments I'd want to do with the sonar fit that would make a Burke-replacement DDG even more expensive to produce.​
​
What we planned to run was split DD/DDG, plus a Zumwalt-based CG for BMD and AAW Flagship.​
A Carrier group would have 2x CGs, 2x Burkes, and 2x Zumwalts under this plan. The CG-21/CG(X)s would have 128-256 VLS cells in a roughly Zumwalt-shaped hull. This was accomplished by deleting the AGS turrets and gunhouses entirely and replacing that with VLS tubes. The only ship's guns would be a pair of 57mm Mk110s in stealthy cupolas.​
Also, about now we'd be looking at a DDG to replace the Burkes. I suspect the easy option would be "Zumwalt with 1 gun swapped for more missiles and almost the CG radars" since we were basically already building it, just as two separate things.​

Split/specialized destroyers means that you can spend a little more money on systems of the specialty and less on the deprecated feature(s), which should make the total cost of the fleet a bit less, even if the two ships are about as expensive as each other. And there are times and plans for things like an ASW-focused DD as the command ship of a convoy escort group, or an AAW-focused DDG escorting Amphibs. But as the Navy is pointing out with their complaints about fitting gun and CPS into the same ship, it also means that there will be times when you won't have the ship with the right tools for the job on scene. Also, at least today, 25-30 years after SC-21, the minimum AAW capability required for a ship has greatly increased with dronespam.

But a single DDG with both top-line AAW and top-line ASW is going to be expensive.
SC-21 was actually talking about having no less than 4 sonars on the "Maritime Fire Support ship" design that evolved into the Zumwalt: SQS-53C hull/bow ASW sonar (same as on Burkes and last Ticos), a high-frequency bow sonar (IIRC HF sonars are for mine-hunting), a (lightweight) Variable Depth Sonar, and a Multifunction Towed Array.​
SC-21 was also talking about having 2 air-search radars: one volume-search Multi-Function Radar (became SPY-3) and one X-band horizon-search and target illumination radar.​
This cost gets even worse if you don't have any cruisers and instead have all those DDGs equipped for BMD, as BMD needs bigger radars than AAW.
 
But as the Navy is pointing out with their complaints about fitting gun and CPS into the same ship, it also means that there will be times when you won't have the ship with the right tools for the job on scene.
But when they start talking large numbers of CPS it pushes the thinking to where we are today. Suppress the CPS appetite a bit, they arent a core role for most of the fleet. Thats why some minimal GVLS cells make sense to me, most of them can be loaded with Mk-41 inserts but if strike stuff is needed then you still have a choice of whether to load CPS or quad pack SM6 etc.
SC-21 was also talking about having 2 air-search radars: one volume-search Multi-Function Radar (became SPY-3) and one X-band horizon-search and target illumination radar.
Still a good idea, but the X-band doesnt need to be especially powerful if it can track targets well enough to engage weapons out to the horizon.
 
But when they start talking large numbers of CPS it pushes the thinking to where we are today. Suppress the CPS appetite a bit, they arent a core role for most of the fleet. Thats why some minimal GVLS cells make sense to me, most of them can be loaded with Mk-41 inserts but if strike stuff is needed then you still have a choice of whether to load CPS or quad pack SM6 etc.
I think the CPS want has been on the order of ~24 per ship. It might be better packaging-wise for GVLS instead of the APTs used on the Zumwalt conversions, but I have been assuming APTs not GVLS.



Still a good idea, but the X-band doesnt need to be especially powerful if it can track targets well enough to engage weapons out to the horizon.
Needs to be good enough to illuminate clear out to SM2 range, actually. So >170km illum range.
 
Needs to be good enough to illuminate clear out to SM2 range, actually. So >170km illum range.

Why does a new ship need to support long range semi-active missiles? By the time we have a new ship in service, we might not have enough legacy SM-2 inventory to fill out all the Burke VLS cells, much less a new class of warship.
 
Last edited:
Isn't the latest Block variant of the SM-2 still in production? It still fills a very useful role for targets that don't require the extended ranges of SM-6.
 
Latest versions (IIIC / IIICU) have SM-6's active seeker though, and I think all the RIM-66 III / IIIA in USN service are being upgraded to the IIIB variant that adds an IIR seeker. Older versions of ESSM might be the only SARH-only missiles in USN service by the time a new DDG is in the fleet.
 
Last edited:
Why does a new ship need to support long range semi-active missiles? By the time we have a new ship in service, we might not have enough legacy SM-2 inventory to fill out all the Burke VLS cells, much less a new class of warship.
Because semi-active guidance is cheaper.

Also, don't PAC-3s technically need an illumination radar?
 
Needs to be good enough to illuminate clear out to SM2 range, actually. So >170km illum range.
I don't think we are talking about illumination radar, its just a high definition radar that can differentiate air & surface targets from clutter at the horizon. So it does 3D as well as surface -- ▪I think Sea Giraffe 1X interleaves the 2 modes so you dont have to select either/or like the Zumwalt.
Why does a new ship need to support long range semi-active missiles?
They dont, the Constellation already requires active homing missiles. Enough older ships in the fleet to use up any remaining semi-active missiles.
Also, don't PAC-3s technically need an illumination radar?
I thought they get mid-course updates? Its a problem if they need illumination...
 
Would note the Hawk with its semi-active seeker has been very successfully used by the Ukrainians because its available in large numbers /cheap and effective.
 
For the record: the Tamir missile for the Iron Dome system cost 314 000 USD per piece for the USMC in FY27.
Cheaper than the ESSM Mk.1...
The Tamir has active seeker...

So no, in the XXI. century the semi-active is a legacy guidance method.

I would also argue that with the accuracy of today's sensors, command guidance shows more promise for cheap interceptors than SARH.
 
It means you should be abandoning ship instead of risking more sailors' lives by trying to pointlessly use your 5 inch gun manually to hit ASM/ABSM/hypersonics.
there are all kinds of scenarios you'd be abandoning ship when it could still fight. Pass.
 
So better to let it sink than to keep on fighting, am I right?
The idea was that feeding the 5" loader manually was a waste of manpower and limits your rate of fire to the point of uselessness in an air defence scenario. I guess the ability to manually load Phalanx will save you as well.
I think it would be a major miracle if they managed not to screw up both programs, even with infinite money. Money is the least of our problems.
But if DDG(X) isn't funded then you cant progress the design.
 
The idea was that feeding the 5" loader manually was a waste of manpower and limits your rate of fire to the point of uselessness in an air defence scenario. I guess the ability to manually load Phalanx will save you as well.
Sorry, what?
 

Attachments

  • maxresdefault.jpg
    maxresdefault.jpg
    148.9 KB · Views: 23
  • RIM-162-ESSM-030.jpg
    RIM-162-ESSM-030.jpg
    534.5 KB · Views: 24
  • RIM-116-RAM-025.jpg
    RIM-116-RAM-025.jpg
    594.2 KB · Views: 23
I'm sure there'd be a case where you put oars on your ship just in case of propulsion failure.

----
But really, calculate the life cycle cost of extra sailors and consider the expected value by odds of events and benefit from the backup.

To have something for every contingency is a sure way into cost explosions.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom