sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,727
Reaction score
3,693
A stretched Burke really cannot fit what the Navy is asking for, which is a ship with a lot of space and power for future upgrades. The Burke hull is the antitheses of this, having been criticized before the first ship was even laid down for poor growth margin. To build an Integrated Power System, like what is demanded on LSC, would require fundamental redesign to the entire ship, to the point you have a new class, and have probably just made it more difficult to design by constraining the work to an existing hullform. There is also the issue of fitting very large hypersonic weapons such as IR-CPS, which is a large, nine meter long missile that would be very difficult to fit within the existing Burke stability margin.

Stretched Burke, CRS reported back in 2009 on various possible options with info provided by Navy

Flight IIA base length 96 Mk41 VLS cells
Option 1 - 12' ext 128 Mk41 VLS cells
Option 2 - 30' ext 160 Mk41 VLS cells
Option 3 - <56' ext 192 Mk41 VLS cells
Option 4 - 56' ext 256 Mk 41 VLS cells

From memory remember maximum Burke hull plug length possible ~66', not saying a preferred option as Burkes original design dates back to the late 1980's and as totallyaverage said dense ship making expensive to maintain, but it would be possible basis for the DDG(X). IPS is not a mandatory requirement for possible future electric power for DEW, certainly preferable but a quick and dirty and cheaper solution would be an additional GTG.
And still be basically kicking the can down the road. Even with the added GTG it still does not solve the crewing issues, infact INCREASE IT, nor will it allow for a Bigger radar like the Navy wants cause the Burkes hull cant support it.

Wow you got a bigger missile load, big deal, we cant afford to LOAD THEM. And they cant carry the newer larger missiles any how.

It have the same issues as the Viriginia Class Cruisers did in the 90s. Too expansive, crew heavy, and limited for what they bring.
Navy bigger radar requirement, would note that AMDR, now the SPY-6, estimated as 30 times more sensitive than SPY-1 was the largest Navy could fit on an upgraded Burke IIA, the Flight III, they went with that option due to budget constraints. Raytheon claims the new SPY-6 with its GaN silicon under testing has exceeded expectations and achieved 100 times sensitivity, so talk of Navy needing larger radar for its BMD mission has died.

Probability of DDG(X) fitting large missiles, hypersonic, think low due to the high cost, if they do it will be in penny packet numbers, mentioned previously above there is a question mark if Congress will even fund the large Army/Navy hypersonic missile for Virginia Block V's to partially replace the four Ohio Tomahawk SSGN's, let alone the DDG(X). At moment Ticos, Burkes and Ohio SSGN have total of ~10,000 VLS cells and use the 1980's era land attack Tomahawks and at ~$1.5 million each, so 'cheap', but Navy needs new gen missile for land attack and the Army/Navy hypersonic looks unaffordable in big numbers, a big problem for the Navy needing an affordable replacement for the Tomahawk..

As said new Burke flight variant also not my preferred option either for DDG(X) but it would be an option, think would gain Congressional funding, Congress substantially cut Navy development funding for the DDG(X) in FY2021 NDAA.
Yes, because the Navy seems to be unable to actually articulate correctly what they want in DDG(X).

You're proposing keeping on faffing about with an overloaded hull that would require major design work to make longer, and will still struggle to fit in all the power future systems will require.

Meanwhile the basis for a DDG(X) is right there. We're not saying that Zumwalt should be used 1:1, but the hull shape, the systems, the power, all of that works. And by all accounts works pretty darn well.

Take the basic hull and power systems, and build up from that.
That was the original plan. That they're wasting so much time and money d**king around is almost criminal.
 

Cordy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
137
Reaction score
121
MihoshiK said
Yes, because the Navy seems to be unable to actually articulate correctly what they want in DDG(X).

You're proposing keeping on faffing about with an overloaded hull that would require major design work to make longer, and will still struggle to fit in all the power future systems will require.

Meanwhile the basis for a DDG(X) is right there. We're not saying that Zumwalt should be used 1:1, but the hull shape, the systems, the power, all of that works. And by all accounts works pretty darn well.

Take the basic hull and power systems, and build up from that.

I'm not fan of the Burke as basis for DDG(X), as have said twice above it would not be my preference for the DDG(X), but it is a possibility, certainly a better option than the Zumwalt which wouldn't touch with a barge pole as it would cost more than double price of Burke, think i'm in good company with Norman Friedman who was also not a fan of Zumwalt :)

Burkes propulsion all GT which are gas guzzling except when operating at 90% + rpm and the driver for the Burke HED system to backfit and now cancelled, what did surprise me was the Navy did say Zumwalt GT IPS used more fuel than Burkes!, what ships operating in Pacific need is range and so not operationally dependent on oilers.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,346
Reaction score
2,946

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
2,447
Reaction score
1,407

Firefinder

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
217
Reaction score
331
Welp looks like the Navy is going for the Refitting for the Hypersonics.


Looking like they are going to Dry dock them around 2024.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,655
Reaction score
1,007
Fitting IR-CPS is much more useful than the AGS given what the Navy needs, and its future force mix given that it is still developing the LSC. The three Zumwalt class surface ships, and the submarines will be the IR-CPS platforms of choice and between these this should be more than enough to cover the limited IR-CPS inventory. SM-6 1B and whatever comes out of DARPA's TBG program will make up the other aspect of the Navy's hypersonic offensive capability but those will be much shorter ranged systems and a naval TBG is a more medium-far term capability given the investments Navy is currently priortizing..
 
Last edited:

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,564
Reaction score
693
Good questions by NavalNews, though I would have tried to squeeze in an enquiry about whether SPY-6 is also on the menu for the 2024 refit.
It's kinda sad story for the AGS's
In a way, yes. The guns themselves, by all accounts, function and most of facepalm-inducing aspects of AGS come from high-level decision-making blunders rather than technical fault. A lot of good work done by good people ultimately for naught.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,977
Reaction score
2,560
Good questions by NavalNews, though I would have tried to squeeze in an enquiry about whether SPY-6 is also on the menu for the 2024 refit.
It's kinda sad story for the AGS's
In a way, yes. The guns themselves, by all accounts, function and most of facepalm-inducing aspects of AGS come from high-level decision-making blunders rather than technical fault. A lot of good work done by good people ultimately for naught.

The Navy's acquisition of guided gun rounds has been such a shocking Charlie Foxtrot for decades -- ever since Deadeye was cancelled, really.

Here's hoping that ALaMO bucks the trend.
 

MihoshiK

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
245
Reaction score
199
Good questions by NavalNews, though I would have tried to squeeze in an enquiry about whether SPY-6 is also on the menu for the 2024 refit.
It's kinda sad story for the AGS's
In a way, yes. The guns themselves, by all accounts, function and most of facepalm-inducing aspects of AGS come from high-level decision-making blunders rather than technical fault. A lot of good work done by good people ultimately for naught.

The Navy's acquisition of guided gun rounds has been such a shocking Charlie Foxtrot for decades -- ever since Deadeye was cancelled, really.

Here's hoping that ALaMO bucks the trend.
The biggest problem that AGS has is that there's only six gun units in the fleet. That makes procuring rounds so shockingly expensive. If the original plans for the Zumwalt production had gone through, you'd see the munition costs drop by an order of magnitude, because there would be a production line opened for them.
As it stands right now each round is basically artisanal made by hand.

Guns work fine, ammo works fine, but if you can't get economies of scale....

All in all getting rid of AGS and putting hypersonics in their place so that the fleet can get some operational experience with those is probably the wisest move.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,733
Reaction score
1,426
Good questions by NavalNews, though I would have tried to squeeze in an enquiry about whether SPY-6 is also on the menu for the 2024 refit.
It's kinda sad story for the AGS's
In a way, yes. The guns themselves, by all accounts, function and most of facepalm-inducing aspects of AGS come from high-level decision-making blunders rather than technical fault. A lot of good work done by good people ultimately for naught.

The Navy's acquisition of guided gun rounds has been such a shocking Charlie Foxtrot for decades -- ever since Deadeye was cancelled, really.

Here's hoping that ALaMO bucks the trend.
The biggest problem that AGS has is that there's only six gun units in the fleet. That makes procuring rounds so shockingly expensive. If the original plans for the Zumwalt production had gone through, you'd see the munition costs drop by an order of magnitude, because there would be a production line opened for them.
As it stands right now each round is basically artisanal made by hand.

Guns work fine, ammo works fine, but if you can't get economies of scale....

All in all getting rid of AGS and putting hypersonics in their place so that the fleet can get some operational experience with those is probably the wisest move.
Thank you for bringing up the Navy's lack of focus on an infrastucture which support something like AGS. This is more proof the technical decision making culture of the Navy has been broken for long time.

PS: Hypersonics, of any decent range, are too large for any decent size magazine, even on a DDG(X) IMHO.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,733
Reaction score
1,426
Neither the 57mm or the 127mm have antecedents in the Army or the USMC. Talk about no economies of scale. The above programs should have been joint in the first place as the SLRC should be.
 

isayyo2

Lurker alert
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
547
Reaction score
747
That's one problem with LRLAP. But what explains Deadeye, ERGM, BTERM, ANSR, HVP, Excalibur N5, etc? All intended for 127mm guns. All either failed or abandoned.
We could go back even further with Project Gunfighters sabot, and later the Mk 71's Paveway round!
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
799
PS: Hypersonics, of any decent range, are too large for any decent size magazine, even on a DDG(X) IMHO.

IMO, with a minimum range measured in hundreds of miles, there is no need to even base CPS on a major combatant platform. It should just be put into a dedicated version of an auxiliary class already in production (the new oilers or the new expeditionary bases). It could hit targets in China while steaming circles around Guam. Or on the far side of Japan.
 
Last edited:

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,727
Reaction score
3,693
PS: Hypersonics, of any decent range, are too large for any decent size magazine, even on a DDG(X) IMHO.

IMO, with a minimum range measured in hundreds of miles, there is no need to even base CPS on a major combatant platform. It should just be put into a dedicated version of an auxiliary class already in production (the new oilers or the new expeditionary bases). It could hit targets in China while steaming circles around Guam. Or on the far side of Japan.
How about no? Any ship with these onboard is going to be a high priority target and should be able to defend itself.
 

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
16,999
Reaction score
6,634
Or else an arsenal cruiser that is intended to be expendable.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,733
Reaction score
1,426
Wrong thread?

Unless I'm totally missing a link to the Zumwalts?
Only a 57mm guided rd is being proposed as any type of upgrade for the USN guns at this time unless some can inform. guided 57mm Raytheon or BAE etc. Autocannons dont count.
 
Last edited:

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
799
PS: Hypersonics, of any decent range, are too large for any decent size magazine, even on a DDG(X) IMHO.

IMO, with a minimum range measured in hundreds of miles, there is no need to even base CPS on a major combatant platform. It should just be put into a dedicated version of an auxiliary class already in production (the new oilers or the new expeditionary bases). It could hit targets in China while steaming circles around Guam. Or on the far side of Japan.
How about no? Any ship with these onboard is going to be a high priority target and should be able to defend itself.

A large hull of that type has ample room and lower cost of owner And operation. If it needs to be defended, give it an escort appropriate to the threat level. It’s an intermediate ranged weapon; it doesn’t need to be near a threat and probably can’t fire at a target within several hundred miles. If it was outside Tokyo bay and is still under threat, I’m pretty sure the war is lost anyway.

If you put CPS on an escort you’re going to tear through tonnage and volume, or else defensive weapon cells, super fast. A Burke design for instance likely wouldn’t be able to be modified. Zoomies are going to sacrifice pretty much everything forward of the bridge for a dozen missiles. Is every DDGX going t have to use that amount of space for that installation?

LSUV might make sense, but we’re back to undefended platform.
 

Desertfox

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
268
Reaction score
117
Want alot of them on ships cheaply? Containerize them and requisition some commercial container ships.
 

A Tentative Fleet Plan

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Apr 9, 2018
Messages
260
Reaction score
482
I don't think LRHW will have enough standoff range to guarantee safety for its launch platform anymore than Tomahawk did in the 1980s, especially when you realise that many important targets will be well inland within China meaning any launch platform will have to get much closer than the full range of LRHW would potentially allow.

Given the range of Chinese weapon systems, everything based in and around the first island chain is vulnerable and than includes the Japanese archipelago. If you want invulnerability, you probably want something like the Conventional Trident Modification which could at least deliver a payload of 3000lbs to a target 4000 nautical miles away, which would at least provide enough sea-room to make the job of any Chinese SSN operating in the Pacific much harder.
 

Desertfox

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
268
Reaction score
117
Range isn't everything, you still need very good ISR to find and target ships that far out. Even a CBG is not easy to find at those ranges, much less lone cruisers and especially disguised merchants.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
799
My point is that these weapons require a much different level of volume and weight (apparently 16,000lbs each sans launcher) and you are going to waste a lot of volume and freeboard crushing that into an escort. The range of the weapon is stated to be 1750 miles by the army (I assume that is a very rough number); the launch platform could be well past the first island chain and still strike hundreds of miles inland. Maybe the platform needs defending, maybe it doesn’t, maybe it operates with a CSG, maybe it doesn’t. But it makes sense to me to separate this offensive capability out from the escort screen rather than shoehorn it into ships that are already already taxed by their mission requirements.
 

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,564
Reaction score
693
Want alot of them on ships cheaply? Containerize them and requisition some commercial container ships.
Unless we're going to "requisition" at gunpoint, there's a shortage of US-flagged hulls on hand with Pacific legs. Unless we go back to subsidizing more commercial construction in the US and recreate a US Transpac carrier to run them.
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
1,001
Reaction score
86
The ship built entirely around a gun now is getting the gun replaced with non gun stuff. You cant make this stuff up
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,313
Reaction score
6,305
We apologise for the fault in the
subtitles. Those responsible have been
sacked.

We apologise again for the fault in the
subtitles. Those responsible for sacking
the people who have just been sacked,
have been sacked.
The directors of the firm hired to
continue the credits after the other
people had been sacked, wish it to
be known that they have just been
sacked.

The credits have been completed
in an entirely different style at great
expense and at the last minute.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
799
To my point about range, if you were 800 miles off the west coast of Taiwan, 1750 would still have a range circle from Beijing to Hanoi. Just using that second city as way of establishing range; if the US sends any ordnance Vietnam’s way now a days it will probably be in cargo cases with bows on them.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,727
Reaction score
3,693
The ship built entirely around a gun now is getting the gun replaced with non gun stuff. You cant make this stuff up
IF that were true that would be something. Zumwalt wasn't "built entirely around a gun". The Zumwalt hull was to form the basis of the Ticonderoga replacement which would have swapped out at least one of the guns for more missiles.
 

Similar threads

Top