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

Through Deck Arleigh Burke

Antonio

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,465
Reaction score
196
Dear RP1,

I found your post at whatifmodelers forum:

A flight deck AB variant was actually proposed, in an issue of Naval Engineers Journal IIRC. It was a new-build using the hullform and superstructure elements, designed to accommodate several V-22s (for ASW, IIRC). A profile is on my "things to do" list.

would you be so kind to post that NEJ pic?

Thanks in advance
 

TinWing

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
888
Reaction score
49
Re: Through Deck Areigh Burke

pometablava said:
Dear RP1,

I found your post at whatifmodelers forum:

A flight deck AB variant was actually proposed, in an issue of Naval Engineers Journal IIRC. It was a new-build using the hullform and superstructure elements, designed to accommodate several V-22s (for ASW, IIRC). A profile is on my "things to do" list.

would you be so kind to post that NEJ pic?

Thanks in advance

The design of the "Flight Deck DD963" pre-dates even the protracted V-22 program. This was a mid-70s design.

I don't know about a Naval Engineers Journal article or drawing, but there was a Litton Ingalls supplied drawing an article in "Proceedings," a Naval Institute Press Publication.
 

RP1

I see the truth in it.
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
447
Reaction score
86
Website
rp-one.net
Re: Through Deck Areigh Burke

pometablava,

Please find attached a low-rez scan of the final proposed design. A number of options were considered before this one was proposed. The hullform is derived from the AB. The fwd SS houses all 4 SPY-1D arrays (aft ones as high as possible). 6 V-22 could be supported.

Source:

Kehoe, Captn J W (USN Ret), Brower, K S & Meier, H A, (1990), "An Air-Capable Combatant for the 21st Century", Naval Engineers Journal, Vol 103 No 3, May, Alexandria, VA: ASNE

TinWing:

Do you know which Proceedings? It should be in our library.

RP1
 

Attachments

  • acc21c.png
    acc21c.png
    111.8 KB · Views: 1,051

eltf177

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
45
Reaction score
2
Re: Through Deck Areigh Burke

over on the warship project board under "own designs" there are some drawings on something very similar.
 

TinWing

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
888
Reaction score
49
Re: Through Deck Areigh Burke

RP1 said:
pometablava,

Please find attached a low-rez scan of the final proposed design. A number of options were considered before this one was proposed. The hullform is derived from the AB. The fwd SS houses all 4 SPY-1D arrays (aft ones as high as possible). 6 V-22 could be supported.

Source:

Kehoe, Captn J W (USN Ret), Brower, K S & Meier, H A, (1990), "An Air-Capable Combatant for the 21st Century", Naval Engineers Journal, Vol 103 No 3, May, Alexandria, VA: ASNE

I could swear that the hull looks like it has the wider beam and outward flare of the DDG-51 class? Is this derived from the Burke class?

This most certainly is different that the two mid-70s Litton Ingalls designs, but I can appreciate that it was very suitable for the V-22 - more so that the "Flight Deck DD-963" of a decade and a half earlier.

Did the Naval Engineer's Journal article offer any dimensions or tonnages?

RP1 said:
TinWing:

Do you know which Proceedings? It should be in our library.

RP1

I don't remember the date, and I don't have the photocopies at my finger tips. As I recollect, it was in a 1976 issue....but I'm not sure. In any case, the article was very general in content, with only the two drawings I mentioned. Because the drawings were from the shipbuilder, I think higher resolution scans might be allowable under "fair use" criteria. I chopped the first drawing into two, did a bit of cropping, increased the contrast to 100%, and converted the results to 1 bit black and white. From 400kb to two 20kb drawings.
 

Attachments

  • DD963FlightDeckProfile.gif
    DD963FlightDeckProfile.gif
    21.9 KB · Views: 816
  • DD963FlightDeckTop.gif
    DD963FlightDeckTop.gif
    18 KB · Views: 706

RP1

I see the truth in it.
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
447
Reaction score
86
Website
rp-one.net
Re: Through Deck Areigh Burke

I could swear that the hull looks like it has the wider beam and outward flare of the DDG-51 class? Is this derived from the Burke class?

AB hull from the waterline down. Additional flare and tumblehome added (i.e. superstructure tumblehome continued one deck into a more flared hull).

Did the Naval Engineer's Journal article offer any dimensions or tonnages?

Final design:

Loa = 549ft
Lbp = 500ft
Bwl = 73.3ft
T = 22ft
Disp (light / deep) = 11,984/8,881 LT
Speed (max) = 29.1 knots

RP1
 

rabid stoat

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
11
Reaction score
12
Re: Through Deck Areigh Burke

Surely I'm counting deck levels wrong. if that diagram is right it would look something like this (minus likely errors on my part):

Link to full size pic:
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u94/rabid_stoat/Burke%20Upgrades/USADDV-91VITTORIOVENETO2.gif


BTW, where are the funnels etc?!!

My take on it (and fixed up the errors, i hope):

Link to full size pic:
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u94/rabid_stoat/Burke%20Upgrades/USADDV-91VITTORIOVENETO3.gif


Again, if the diagram's right, the whole forward superstructure is moved forward, as is the VLS farm, while the 5-inch is moved right aft. Why?

EDIT: 549 ft would make it considerably longer. My bad. Likely the forward structure doesn't move forward after all.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,889
Reaction score
1,192
I'd seen the Spruance hybrid design before but never a design based on the Arleigh Burke. The very good book 'The Hybrid Warship' makes no reference to it but it does of several other 'private' schemes and the CSGN.

I'm inclined to think this was a last-ditch attempt to design a strike capable aircraft carrying cruiser with the Aegis rather than being a variant of the Burke Class.
 

RP1

I see the truth in it.
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
447
Reaction score
86
Website
rp-one.net
Rabid Stoat,

Your first drawing is closer. The hangar extends one deck above the upperdeck, but you need to increase the freeboard a bit. The draught is 22ft and the hull depth is 56.8ft.

Regarding machinery. The large GTAs are in machinery spaces either side of the gun aft, above the waterline. These draw in air through the pyramidal structure you have drawn as a FlyCo (I think this space was actually supposed to be on the fwd SS), and they exuast through the transom. In each of the motor rooms in the hull, there seems to be a small GTA with small inlets on the port side and exhausts on the stbd side, much like your second drawing but only one deck tall.

If you look closely at the drawing, you can see there are three VLS batteries, one fwd and one either side aft, total cells 128. I think the gun was put aft to get it out of the way. The initial concepts show it fwd, but moving it aft allows a slightly better flight deck arrangement.

RP1
 

rabid stoat

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
11
Reaction score
12
Last try, I hope. Increased the length and freeboard to what I hope are roughly the right dimensions. Intake aft of the flight deck, Flyco to fwd ss, ECM thingy raised above the bridge, CIWS raised a deck, VLS aft, small exhausts added (too small, says I), transom altered and ESSM removed (oops!).

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u94/rabid_stoat/Burke%20Upgrades/USACGV-119.gif

EDIT: Weird. The pic in Photobucket is smaller than the original. Wonder what I can do about that...?
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u94/rabid_stoat/Burke%20Upgrades/USACGV-119b.gif

FIXED
 

Attachments

  • USACGV-119.GIF
    USACGV-119.GIF
    51 KB · Views: 515

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,290
Reaction score
1,246
I know this is years late, but I wanted to thank the posters for sharing this design. I remember one other slightly novel feature here. The elevators were odd two-level designs -- when lowered, the upper deck of the elevator formed the roof of the hangar and when raised, it actually stood above the level of the flight deck. This eliminated the need for separate (leaky) doors to cover the hangar opening when lowered while allowing the elevator footprint to be used for aircraft storage.
 

Similar threads

Top