• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,325
Reaction score
68
Can you make up the lost capability of the Ticos by just building more Burkes? Say 3 Burkes to 2 Ticos? Can quantity make up for quality?

If you buy that distributed radar gives you an SNR improvement that's quadratic in the number of nodes (ships) it comes down
to 9 * (SNR of one Burke array) vs. 4 * (SNR of one Tico array).
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,018
Reaction score
35
Can you make up the lost capability of the Ticos by just building more Burkes? Say 3 Burkes to 2 Ticos? Can quantity make up for quality?
If it were just a matter of VLS cells, sure, and it would help overall numbers. But the fleet would still lose the command facilities and associated spaces the CGs have, the gigantic Ship's Mission Centers on the 3 Zs will be the only decent command facilities not on a carrier or LCC. Whole lotta people, even many who should know better, try to handwave away the problems of cramming Alpha Whiskey, or a SAG command staff, into a Burke's CIC for the long term. I'd also point out that command hulls should have additional survivability, which an overloaded DDG-51 hull would not.

Then there's the generational problem of new, larger, more power-hungry systems coming into the fleet. Even if we're not going to do "cruisers" anymore and don't care about the command issues, we can't stick with a 1980s hull much longer if we hope to carry 2030s and onwards weapons, sensors, ECM, etc.
 
Last edited:

Desertfox

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
99
Reaction score
16
So the next question would then be, can we go back to the era of "single-purpose" frigates? Can you build some Burkes as "command" destroyers and some as BMD destroyers and the rest as multi-purpose ships? Don't cram everything into one ship, distribute it among the fleet. The BMD destroyers for example wouldn't need the ASW suite of the other ones.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
831
Reaction score
62
Sort of related question, how come the Valley Forge was decommisioned and sunkas a target after 18 years of service? Apparently intended for a 30 year service life, what was the thinking behind this? Best I could find was a meaningless suggestion that the missile systems were not up top scratch but, with an intended 30 years service life an update was always on the cards. I do wish the military around the world could find a manual on joined up thinking, and read the muddy thing.......
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,018
Reaction score
35
Sort of related question, how come the Valley Forge was decommisioned and sunkas a target after 18 years of service? Apparently intended for a 30 year service life, what was the thinking behind this? Best I could find was a meaningless suggestion that the missile systems were not up top scratch but, with an intended 30 years service life an update was always on the cards. I do wish the military around the world could find a manual on joined up thinking, and read the muddy thing.......
The first 5 Ticonderoga class were built without VLS because Mk41 wasn't ready in 1980 and the Navy didn't want to wait until it was. The plan to re-arm these 5 hulls with VLS during a major refit ran into a lot of cost issues, and keeping them as-was would mean keeping the MK26 supply chain and the production line for Non-VLS Standards going. The Gordon England-Donald Rumsfeld-era Navy decided they'd rather retire the non-VLS combatants way ahead of time to save money than pay for a comprehensive refit plan. To make matters worse, right around 2003 they suddenly fell in love with SINKEXing modern combatants. There's plenty of good reasons to sink a recent ship once in awhile, but it became something of a fetish for the mid-to-late 2000s navy. Valley Forge and twenty five Spruance class were sunk in half a decade.

This has also lead to some theorizing, which may not be far off, that the mass retirements and rapid sinking/scrapping was part of a campaign to pressure Congress to keep money flowing into LCS and the DDG programs.
So the next question would then be, can we go back to the era of "single-purpose" frigates? Can you build some Burkes as "command" destroyers and some as BMD destroyers and the rest as multi-purpose ships? Don't cram everything into one ship, distribute it among the fleet. The BMD destroyers for example wouldn't need the ASW suite of the other ones.
Not all that easily, the Burke class is well designed as a multi-mission combatant but doesn't have the designed-in flexibility or reconfigurable spaces that some more modern concepts have. A "Command" version needs additional command space that doesn't really fit anywhere easily, which is why the Japanese and Korean command destroyers descended from the Burke both are larger (longer, wider, taller) and have additional decks.
 

Desertfox

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
99
Reaction score
16
Not all that easily, the Burke class is well designed as a multi-mission combatant but doesn't have the designed-in flexibility or reconfigurable spaces that some more modern concepts have. A "Command" version needs additional command space that doesn't really fit anywhere easily, which is why the Japanese and Korean command destroyers descended from the Burke both are larger (longer, wider, taller) and have additional decks.
Is there a reason we can't use the bigger Japanese and Korean designs as the base for the Flight IV Burkes instead of the current hulls? That should go part way into solving the problem.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,918
Reaction score
269
Not all that easily, the Burke class is well designed as a multi-mission combatant but doesn't have the designed-in flexibility or reconfigurable spaces that some more modern concepts have. A "Command" version needs additional command space that doesn't really fit anywhere easily, which is why the Japanese and Korean command destroyers descended from the Burke both are larger (longer, wider, taller) and have additional decks.
Is there a reason we can't use the bigger Japanese and Korean designs as the base for the Flight IV Burkes instead of the current hulls? That should go part way into solving the problem.
IIRC they're built to commercial standards, not military.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,018
Reaction score
35
Not all that easily, the Burke class is well designed as a multi-mission combatant but doesn't have the designed-in flexibility or reconfigurable spaces that some more modern concepts have. A "Command" version needs additional command space that doesn't really fit anywhere easily, which is why the Japanese and Korean command destroyers descended from the Burke both are larger (longer, wider, taller) and have additional decks.
Is there a reason we can't use the bigger Japanese and Korean designs as the base for the Flight IV Burkes instead of the current hulls? That should go part way into solving the problem.
It comes up somewhat regularly. The short version is, the cost of American-izing them would essentially run the same as taking a Flight III and inflating it to the same size and would produce largely the same end product. While there's appeal to that idea, the resulting destroyers would be so distinct from the existing Burke variants as to have an impact on the budget and logistics similar to that of having an entirely new class of ship, but without the future-proofing baked into an all-new ship.
 
Top