Arleigh Burke Flight IIA and III

Josh_TN said:
Pointless. IMO, if you are in Harpoon range you are too close, and eight missiles means nothing anyway. At a minimum, at least adopt NSM. But quite honestly I would more low cost AD systems like Coyote2 instead of.
Click to expand...
That’s why you have multiple ships with harpoons. 2 burkes is 16 missiles. 3 is 24 missiles…
 
johnpjones1775 said:
That’s why you have multiple ships with harpoons. 2 burkes is 16 missiles. 3 is 24 missiles…
Click to expand...

If your target is less than hundred miles away from your entire task force, sure. I’d argue that is an unrealistic peer opponent scenario.
 
Josh_TN said:
If your target is less than hundred miles away from your entire task force, sure. I’d argue that is an unrealistic peer opponent scenario.
Click to expand...
Show me a single instance of a combat launch of an ASM from a surface combatant from beyond 100 miles away.

Real life I mean, not a video game or an exercise.
The latest block of harpoons have a range of over 100 miles anyway
 
Last edited:
johnpjones1775 said:
Show me a single instance of a combat launch of an ASM from a surface combatant from beyond 100 miles away.

Real life I mean, not a video game or an exercise.
The latest block of harpoons have a range of over 100 miles anyway
Click to expand...

Show me a single instance of a ship vs ship combat launch in the last half century, and explain to me why you think it has any bearing on a PLAN/USN fight now.

ETA: Operation Preying Mantis is the only thing I can think of: a knife fight in a phone both four decades ago with a non peer.
 
Josh_TN said:
Show me a single instance of a ship vs ship combat launch in the last half century, and explain to me why you think it has any bearing on a PLAN/USN fight now.

ETA: Operation Praying Mantis is the only thing I can think of: a knife fight in a phone both four decades ago with a non peer.
Click to expand...
Love how you try to limit the number of options because you know no ship has ever launched an ASM from beyond 20 miles in combat.

Missiles have had ranges of 50+ miles for a long time and no one has ever even come close to launching from 50 miles away.

Even if we look at air launched, the longest was like 23 miles.

Shore launched its unknown how far the launch was that sank Moskva, but those missiles were based on harpoons, so even if that was a hundred mile or more launch, we have reason to believe harpoons will work just as fine.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Love how you try to limit the number of options because you know no ship has ever launched an ASM from beyond 20 miles in combat.

Missiles have had ranges of 50+ miles for a long time and no one has ever even come close to launching from 50 miles away.

Even if we look at air launched, the longest was like 23 miles.

Shore launched its unknown how far the launch was that sank Moskva, but those missiles were based on harpoons, so even if that was a hundred mile or more launch, we have reason to believe harpoons will work just as fine.
Click to expand...

It seems like the outer envelope for shore launch from China reaches out to Guam. Any DDG of the PLAN reaches out to several hundred miles with YJ-18, assuming ballistic missiles are not in play. Why would Harpoon be relevant?
 
Josh_TN said:
It seems like the outer envelope for shore launch from China reaches out to Guam. Any DDG of the PLAN reaches out to several hundred miles with YJ-18, assuming ballistic missiles are not in play. Why would Harpoon be relevant?
Click to expand...
Why wouldn’t they? Like I said, no missile launched from any surface vessel has ever come any where near their max range. Why would that suddenly change against China?

Why would we suddenly see missile launches at 200 miles instead of the previous 75 or 150 mile ranges that were possible in the 60s 70s and 80s?
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Why wouldn’t they? Like I said, no missile launched from any surface vessel has ever come any where near their max range. Why would that suddenly change against China?

Why would we suddenly see missile launches at 200 miles instead of the previous 75 or 150 mile ranges that were possible in the 60s 70s and 80s?
Click to expand...

Because of most of half a century of weapons and sensor improvement? Do you think those AShBMs are just for show? If a Burke can walk up to a type 52/55 and tap it with some Harpoons, then PLAN/PLARF is no threat at all. And if the horizon is the functional limit, use SM-2.
 
Josh_TN said:
Because of most of half a century of weapons and sensor improvement? Do you think those AShBMs are just for show? If a Burke can walk up to a type 52/55 and tap it with some Harpoons, then PLAN/PLARF is no threat at all. And if the horizon is the functional limit, use SM-2.
Click to expand...
Again, weapons and sensors were perfectly capable of support missile launches beyond 23 miles when the actual combat launches occurred.

The farther away you launch the more reaction time you give your target.
The farther away you launch the larger the possibility you misidentify a track and hit a noncombatant.
And did i miss an improvement to radar rays that allows them to bend with the curvature of the earth? Radar horizons are still a limitation.
 
Are they just fitting the AN/SLQ-32(V)7s first and then doing the rest of the MOD 2.0 upgrades or are there delays in the program with the 24 RMA SPY-6(V)4s?
 
The SEWIPS and I think the cooling plant are first step and then the SPY-6 upgrade (V6?) happens later. I think there are 2-4 of the SLQ-32 upgrades completed now that get the radar upgrade at later time. Other ships I believe get both upgrades at once there after.
 
Last edited:
https://www.dvidshub.net/news/57351...ght-iii-destroyers-redefining-surface-warfare
https://defence-industry.eu/u-s-nav...tic-missile-defense-capacity-of-two-warships/

Advanced radar and combat system

The Aegis Baseline 10, an advanced combat system built to handle the immense data from the AMDR, the most powerful radar ever fielded on a U.S. Navy surface ship. The increased sensitivity of the radar allows the crew to detect, track and target more complex targets at a greater distance and in less time than the legacy destroyer. This technological leap also allows a Flight III destroyer to simultaneously conduct Air Defense and BMD operations without degradation in performance, effectively performing the work of two Flight IIA ships.

Updated power and cooling infrastructure

For decades, Flight IIA destroyers have relied on a traditional 450-volt electrical system. While highly reliable, this legacy electrical grid is near capacity, leaving little room to power modern, energy-intensive radar systems or future directed-energy weapons. The heightened sensitivity of the AMDR requires a greater demand for ship’s power. The 4160-volt power grid on these ships is designed to fill these needs and leave room for future capability.

The cooling systems on the Flight III have also been upgraded to include more capable air conditioning units and increased chilled water capacity to support the new loads required for AMDR and AEGIS.

Flight III’s also contain updated gas turbine generator sets, which produce 4 megawatts each and a modified steel hull to carry the weight of the new equipment and systems, displacing over 9,500 tons compared to a Flight IIA displacing approximately 9,300 tons.
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom