Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook

The USN is deciding to retire them because they are high maintenance and have a high upgrade cost. Congress has previously made moves to block retirement, but I don't think the administration has weighted in one way or another. I for one I'm willing to take the USN at its word on the matter. If nothing else, it seems to me the only theater where these are needed is the WestPac and that the surviving units could be focused there until more Burke III are online.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Volkodav said:
I am intrigued to see what is done fitted VPMs to the DDG 1000s for hypersonic missiles. Will the design solution be suitable to incorporate into DDGs and FFGs as well?
Click to expand...

Definitely not. The CPS missiles are too long; the launch tubes would require another deck's worth of penetration compared to the Mk41s.
 
Volkodav said:
I am intrigued to see what is done fitted VPMs to the DDG 1000s for hypersonic missiles. Will the design solution be suitable to incorporate into DDGs and FFGs as well?
Click to expand...

No chance of it in FFG-62; as Josh says, it's far too deep to fit in Mk 41 space and the FFG design doesn't have that much extra volume. I think there is a possibility that the Destroyer Payload Module in the DDG(X) concept might accommodate a similar size launcher, but that's far from settled at this point.
 
TomS said:
Volkodav said:
I am intrigued to see what is done fitted VPMs to the DDG 1000s for hypersonic missiles. Will the design solution be suitable to incorporate into DDGs and FFGs as well?
Click to expand...

No chance of it in FFG-62; as Josh says, it's far too deep to fit in Mk 41 space and the FFG design doesn't have that much extra volume. I think there is a possibility that the Destroyer Payload Module in the DDG(X) concept might accommodate a similar size launcher, but that's far from settled at this point.
Click to expand...

I believe the DDG(X) is specifically being proposed with room reserved for CPS, but the Burkes definitely cannot.
 
Josh_TN said:
I believe the DDG(X) is specifically being proposed with room reserved for CPS, but the Burkes definitely cannot.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Only option even remotely possible would be to pull the 5-inch gun and drop one VPM in its place all the way down to the bilges (possibly with a raised deckhouse around the top of the tube). And I think there are spaces around the hoist from the lower magazine to the handling room below the turret that would need to be relocated. Lots of work for very little return.
 
Would there be sufficient depth in the aft VLS space on a Flight IIA or Flight III Burke? Probably not.

What i was thinking about to be honest was the RAN Hunter Class and the possibility of using the volume aft of the funnels where the multi mission deck is, the issue then would be top weight and stability, but they are already being redesigned with a new hull form to incorporate increase volume required low in the hull for various systems, an increase in length for a pair of VPMs could further increase volume without being detrimental to stability.
 
Hmm..


I wonder if you could make an modernized Armor Box Launcher for the Hypersonics to put on the Burkes...

Or set if up in Harpoon type tubes...
 
Firefinder said:
Hmm..


I wonder if you could make an modernized Armor Box Launcher for the Hypersonics to put on the Burkes...

Or set if up in Harpoon type tubes...
Click to expand...
A deck canister for this would be very large, there's no deck space on a DDG-51 that could accomodate a useful number without serious challenges.
 
Moose said:
Firefinder said:
Hmm..


I wonder if you could make an modernized Armor Box Launcher for the Hypersonics to put on the Burkes...

Or set if up in Harpoon type tubes...
Click to expand...
A deck canister for this would be very large, there's no deck space on a DDG-51 that could accomodate a useful number without serious challenges.
Click to expand...

The Army's LRHW TEL is probably around 30 tons loaded with two missiles (each canister is ~9 tons). You could park one on the flight deck, I suppose. Is two a useful number?
 
TomS said:
Moose said:
Firefinder said:
Hmm..


I wonder if you could make an modernized Armor Box Launcher for the Hypersonics to put on the Burkes...

Or set if up in Harpoon type tubes...
Click to expand...
A deck canister for this would be very large, there's no deck space on a DDG-51 that could accomodate a useful number without serious challenges.
Click to expand...

The Army's LRHW TEL is probably around 30 tons loaded with two missiles (each canister is ~9 tons). You could park one on the flight deck, I suppose. Is two a useful number?
Click to expand...
And we could secure them with duct tape. Would be par for the course these days.
 
TomS said:
Moose said:
Firefinder said:
Hmm..


I wonder if you could make an modernized Armor Box Launcher for the Hypersonics to put on the Burkes...

Or set if up in Harpoon type tubes...
Click to expand...
A deck canister for this would be very large, there's no deck space on a DDG-51 that could accomodate a useful number without serious challenges.
Click to expand...

The Army's LRHW TEL is probably around 30 tons loaded with two missiles (each canister is ~9 tons). You could park one on the flight deck, I suppose. Is two a useful number?
Click to expand...

The biggest question would be "why", when the army version is C-17 transportable and has a range of a couple thousand miles.

CPS is possibly going to be backfit to the Zoomies and probably going to be adopted to Flight V Virginias and I think that's it. It is a missile that costs tens of a millions of dollars and I don't see it ever existing in large numbers. Probably dozens to low hundreds.

EDIT: also we may be getting a little ahead of ourselves since it hasn't been end-to-end tested, but it looks like between the Army and Navy there's enough will and money to see it through regardless of testing difficulty.
 
Josh_TN said:
The biggest question would be "why", when the army version is C-17 transportable and has a range of a couple thousand miles.
Click to expand...

Of course. I was trying to be funny, but it wasn't very obvious.
 
TomS said:
sferrin said:
A shame the USN can't be bothered to go with the most obvious solution:

View attachment 684376
Click to expand...

They are doing this. CPS is in fact going on the Zumwalt's, assuming the program continues as currently planned.
Click to expand...
I meant going forward. Hopefully the Tico replacement, if it ever gets built, will be large enough to not have to resort to giant deckhouses to include CPS. (Still sore about them shorting the Zumwalt line and creating a giant CF.)
 
sferrin said:
TomS said:
sferrin said:
A shame the USN can't be bothered to go with the most obvious solution:

View attachment 684376
Click to expand...

They are doing this. CPS is in fact going on the Zumwalt's, assuming the program continues as currently planned.
Click to expand...
I meant going forward. Hopefully the Tico replacement, if it ever gets built, will be large enough to not have to resort to giant deckhouses to include CPS. (Still sore about them shorting the Zumwalt line and creating a giant CF.)
Click to expand...
Oh, I see. Time will tell. Some of the models we've seen associated with DDG(X) imply they are at least thinking about some aspects of the Zumwalt design.
 
sferrin said:
TomS said:
sferrin said:
A shame the USN can't be bothered to go with the most obvious solution:

View attachment 684376
Click to expand...

They are doing this. CPS is in fact going on the Zumwalt's, assuming the program continues as currently planned.
Click to expand...
I meant going forward. Hopefully the Tico replacement, if it ever gets built, will be large enough to not have to resort to giant deckhouses to include CPS. (Still sore about them shorting the Zumwalt line and creating a giant CF.)
Click to expand...
The blame congress for that.

The Navy will love to tell Ingens to start making Zumwalts but Congress had outright forbidden that cause that means that they were wrong and they cant have that.

And cant just switch a few things, Radars, CPS, Gun, and call it a new a class cause that runs afoul of the need to give all the yards a fair chance to make government money laws so needs to be a competition laws .

Eitherway still be like 5 years till they start building even if they could full copy the design due to Ingens needing to redo the yard to build the hull...

Again.

And does Lockmart even still offer the Mk57 vls? Cause that be a major redesign needed if they dont...
 
Firefinder said:
And does Lockmart even still offer the Mk57 vls? Cause that be a major redesign needed if they dont...
Click to expand...

Was Mk 57 ever LM's? I see brochures with Raytheon and BAE on them, but not LM. BAE published a new brochure for it last year, so probably still available on request.
 

Attachments

  • BAE_Digital_USL_Landscape_Mk 57 VLS.pdf
    820.5 KB · Views: 16
Last edited:
Firefinder said:
The blame congress for that.

The Navy will love to tell Ingens to start making Zumwalts but Congress had outright forbidden that cause that means that they were wrong and they cant have that.
Click to expand...
Based on what evidence did you arrive at the conclusion that navy wanted zumwalt but congress held them hostage?
 
I'd assumed they could already do that. I knew they'd removed the VLS integral cranes but I'd assumed they could at least reload from supply ships. They've been doing that with SLBMs since the 60s.
 
Nope, they abandoned in the 1990s all attempts at providing a reloading at sea capability for USN VLS ships as too difficult and expensive, and anyhow totally unnecessary in the new age of enteral peace. [sarc]
 
sferrin said:
I'd assumed they could already do that. I knew they'd removed the VLS integral cranes but I'd assumed they could at least reload from supply ships. They've been doing that with SLBMs since the 60s.
Click to expand...
They can and do reload from tenders, this isn't a demonstration about the act of reloading it's a demonstration of reloading from this particular type of vessel.
 
The USN haven't reloaded VLS ships at sea or indeed outside of ports and such since the late 1990s at least, so far as I am aware.
 
Grey Havoc said:
Nope, they abandoned in the 1990s all attempts at providing a reloading at sea capability for USN VLS ships as too difficult and expensive, and anyhow totally unnecessary in the new age of enteral peace. [sarc]
Click to expand...
They abandoned it because it was extremely dangerous to perform at anything more than a glassy calm. Not only due to the possibility of a wayward canister striking crew or the ship, but also there was the possibility of damaging the weapon. Reloading at sea sounds like a wonderful idea until you crack a motor casing.

In practice, it wasn't a lost capability for the USN because the Mk13 and 26 launchers that the Mk 41 was replacing couldn't reload at sea either.
 
totallyaverage said:
Grey Havoc said:
Nope, they abandoned in the 1990s all attempts at providing a reloading at sea capability for USN VLS ships as too difficult and expensive, and anyhow totally unnecessary in the new age of enteral peace. [sarc]
Click to expand...
They abandoned it because it was extremely dangerous to perform at anything more than a glassy calm. Not only due to the possibility of a wayward canister striking crew or the ship, but also there was the possibility of damaging the weapon. Reloading at sea sounds like a wonderful idea until you crack a motor casing.

In practice, it wasn't a lost capability for the USN because the Mk13 and 26 launchers that the Mk 41 was replacing couldn't reload at sea either.
Click to expand...

Then reload/rearm it in a bay? It's hardly rocket science, that's something the US did in WW2 as well.

It will still be useful to have a few combat cargo ships/maritime prepositioning ships loaded with wooden rounds, at least when the ports and warehouses necessary for this job have been destroyed by strategic bombardment, simply because there's more small bays and calm lagoons than military harbors in the world.

Even if they aren't destroyed, having a transit time of two or three days to some random island shoal beats a week back to Guam or a fortnight to Hawaii. Most of the reasoning for the reload at sea comes from the need to have more ammo in the theater (SCS) than the USN has VLS cells, either now or in the future.

It's a completely lost capability, and one that needs to be regained, because the USN isn't getting more big ships in the medium to long term future.
 
Last edited:
Yes well... all cool stuff, history is littered with "cool" super high-tech designs, I'm sure Popular Mechanics of 1930 thought by 2030 we'd be sailing in hyper Bel Geddes streamlined battleships with hextuple 50in gunned turrets and the editors of 1980 probably thought we'd be sailing fleets of submersible SES craft with 300x VLS siloes on them by now. Real life sucks.

Warships have been long-thin monohulls since man started duking it out on water, even as far back as the trireme. Arguably its just the way to build a vessel that's stable and quick without undue excess power requirements.
 
Last edited:
We should be talking at least semi-submersibles which could transition to SES, yes.

.. there are waves of USN bureaucrats which waste their whole working life-career doing little more than enjoying local bay seafood.

Railguns need as much work as a Strategic Long Range Cannon, a Manhattan Project like cost/schedule no one will contemplate, but would be a great ship asset.

The fact that VLS require in-port, in calm water reloading is a stunning shortfall which needs refinement before someone else does. ...have to believe this is a cost issue not so much engineering. ..cant imagine how one survives as the 'porupine' w/o a quicker reload.
 
Last edited:
jsport said:
Railguns need as much work as a Strategic Long Range Cannon, a Manhattan Project like cost/schedule no one will contemplate, but would be a great ship asset
Click to expand...
Need to point out that tge Army still funding its railgun and last I heard has gotten up to 500 full power shots.

Which is up there with tank guns firing APDSF warshots. Or ww2 5 inch guns.

So railguns are ready for prime time if you decide to drop power, increasing barrellife, in peacetime or stockpile barrels like a hoarder. Like 3 per gun per ship.

We just need a ship to power the damn thing.

Of which only the Zumwalts have tge output of the mainline combat vessels out there. Hopefully the DDGx be able to do it if that thing does suffer like the Zumwalts did...
 
Firefinder said:
jsport said:
Railguns need as much work as a Strategic Long Range Cannon, a Manhattan Project like cost/schedule no one will contemplate, but would be a great ship asset
Click to expand...
Need to point out that tge Army still funding its railgun and last I heard has gotten up to 500 full power shots.

Which is up there with tank guns firing APDSF warshots. Or ww2 5 inch guns.

So railguns are ready for prime time if you decide to drop power, increasing barrellife, in peacetime or stockpile barrels like a hoarder. Like 3 per gun per ship.

We just need a ship to power the damn thing.

Of which only the Zumwalts have tge output of the mainline combat vessels out there. Hopefully the DDGx be able to do it if that thing does suffer like the Zumwalts did...
Click to expand...
Has the discharge from this very low diameter gun stop bending the barrel and could that ever compete w/ a large diameter warhead SCRAM rd from a SLRC?
 
jsport said:
Firefinder said:
jsport said:
Railguns need as much work as a Strategic Long Range Cannon, a Manhattan Project like cost/schedule no one will contemplate, but would be a great ship asset
Click to expand...
Need to point out that tge Army still funding its railgun and last I heard has gotten up to 500 full power shots.

Which is up there with tank guns firing APDSF warshots. Or ww2 5 inch guns.

So railguns are ready for prime time if you decide to drop power, increasing barrellife, in peacetime or stockpile barrels like a hoarder. Like 3 per gun per ship.

We just need a ship to power the damn thing.

Of which only the Zumwalts have tge output of the mainline combat vessels out there. Hopefully the DDGx be able to do it if that thing does suffer like the Zumwalts did...
Click to expand...
Has the discharge from this very low diameter gun stop bending the barrel and could that ever compete w/ a large diameter warhead SCRAM rd from a SLRC?
Click to expand...
Barrel bend has stopped being a issue since the late 90s and its very scale up able.

So long as you have the power.

But its not envision to do the SLRC, which sadly been canceled, job. Its ment for low collateral pin point hits and smacking down hypersonics.
 
Firefinder said:
jsport said:
Firefinder said:
jsport said:
Railguns need as much work as a Strategic Long Range Cannon, a Manhattan Project like cost/schedule no one will contemplate, but would be a great ship asset
Click to expand...
Need to point out that tge Army still funding its railgun and last I heard has gotten up to 500 full power shots.

Which is up there with tank guns firing APDSF warshots. Or ww2 5 inch guns.

So railguns are ready for prime time if you decide to drop power, increasing barrellife, in peacetime or stockpile barrels like a hoarder. Like 3 per gun per ship.

We just need a ship to power the damn thing.

Of which only the Zumwalts have tge output of the mainline combat vessels out there. Hopefully the DDGx be able to do it if that thing does suffer like the Zumwalts did...
Click to expand...
Has the discharge from this very low diameter gun stop bending the barrel and could that ever compete w/ a large diameter warhead SCRAM rd from a SLRC?
Click to expand...
Barrel bend has stopped being a issue since the late 90s and its very scale up able.

So long as you have the power.

But its not envision to do the SLRC, which sadly been canceled, job. Its ment for low collateral pin point hits and smacking down hypersonics.
Click to expand...
recall one of the reasons the USN nixed the rail recently was barrel bend from heat. some mix of chemical and electric and rocket would be the best.
 
jsport said:
The fact that VLS require in-port, in calm water reloading is a stunning shortfall which needs refinement before someone else does. ...have to believe this is a cost issue not so much engineering. ..cant imagine how one survives as the 'porupine' w/o a quicker reload.
Click to expand...

This is much less of an issue than it sounds like.

The amount of weapons the Navy has is roughly of the same magnitude as the amount of VLS cells they have, and that is probably more than what they'd need to fight any serious naval war. Underway replenishment is not a requirement for fighting a major war, because before you'd need to do it, you have either already won or lost all your ships. This is just the same calculus that said that you don't ever need more than 4 AShMs in any realistic situation against a peer opponent. Either you have sufficient numbers that you'll have taken out everything after firing 4 missiles, or the enemy has sufficient numbers that you get sunk before you get to fire more than 4 times. The Navy doubled that and made the requirement 8 just to be sure.

... It would have been useful for bombarding people in mud huts, though.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom