I think you could make a burke using the same spec and have 1 with a 155mm instead of the 127mm and package it with more TLAMS  then SM, and keep the others on a more traditional air defense role.

The first rule of government contracts:

 

Why build one when you can build two at twice the price?

If you want more hulls build smaller ones...

 

Somethng about 6000-8000 tons ( not 14000).. with the same tech..

 

DDG-1000 - Is for naval gunfire, to replace the battleships , and as stated to mature tech....

 

CX-

DDG-1000

DDG-500

LCS

 

Ronald O'Rourke recently gave testimony to Congress about future USN shipbuilding.  It's a good read, I recommend it.  In it he examined options for replacing the DDG-1000 with Burkes or CG(X)s. 

He discussed adding AGS to the Burke - it could likely be done, at the expense of the Mk45 and forward VLS cells, but would only carry 120rnds.  To me, this seems like a waste. 

Only 120 rounds?

 

For the volume that the Mk45 Mod 4 occupies, its magazine and hoists, and other associated equipment,

plus the whole volume taken up by the VLS array,

120 rounds for a single AGS mounting sounds like a very poorly-designed trade off.

Surely someone can do better than that.

 

Even if fully encased ammunition (will the AGS use that, or separate loading projectiles and charges?),

the Swedes even managed a very capable system in their Bandkanone 155mm SP gun, which utilized rather large "clips" containing 14 complete rounds (or was it 16?), mounted on a hull a tad smaller than most MBTs (no more than 12 feet wide, maybe 24 feet long give or take).

And someone comes up with a design to be dropped into a Burke hull in place of both the Mk45 and the the VLS, yet with only 120 rounds?

Sounds like somebody was told, "Piece some AGS parts together, but don't go overboard in magazine capacity, because we'd rather have the DDG1000 with 2 guns and large magazines, rather than a Burke with 1 gun. So for arguments' sake, keep the magazine design small, m'kay?"

 

Aside from the fact its construction wasn't the most seawater-friendly,

the PzH2000's turret, in the MONARC installation trialled onboard the German frigate (read: smaller than a Burke hull), had the potential of at least keeping close to the PzH2000's 60 round capacity (most in the turret, but the hull storage could've been incorporated into the ship, I would think).

And the best we can do in a much-larger Burke hull (helluva lot larger than a PzH2000 chassis) is only 120 rounds?

 

Shucks, that German AGM 155/52 system, utilizing the PzH2000's gun mounted in an automated turret on an MLRS chassis, that thing had access to 30 rounds.

Any reason we can't start from there and work forward?

(navalized construction to reduce seawater sensitivity, heavier structure to allow higher rate of sustained fire, etc)

 

An automated 155mm 55-cal turret with only 120 rounds,

in place of an automated 127mm 62-cal turret with, what, at least 200 rounds?,

plus the complete VLS array?

Yeah, that was a well-thought-out design.

Somebody's being deceived on that suggestion.

 

 

And don't tell me it's a recoil issue: if a Forrest Sherman (USS Hull, wasn't it?)  class destroyer can fire an 8-inch/L55 turret (Mk71 Major Caliber Lightweight Gun, with a 75-round standard magazine capacity with the ability of being backed up by reloads outside the mounting), then we're being conned if someone's trying to put over the idea that a Burke can't handle a 155 with a larger capacity magazine.

link

BAE's own link on the AGS: link

There isnt that much "detail" on the AGS in the public domain and hence I cant give any, however lets just say that gun is a "monster"!!!!

I don't know what was included in the 87 tonnes.  I got the number from here.

This page also notes that as of 2005, DDX would  have "only" 335 rnds
per mount.  If this is the case, then expecting 120 for a single mount
on a Burke doesn't seem unreasonable to me.


I don't know what the full up weight or volume requirements are for either Mk45 or AGS.  A loaded, 61 cell Mk41 VLS weighs around 220-230 tonnes, so figure half of that for the forward 32-cell VLS on a Flight IIA.  I imagine VLS's are rather dense, so the problem may be volume rather than weight. 

...and seeing the security blanket still in effect,

no choice but to accept this explanation, too.

I guess it is possible to develop a shore-bombardment missile based on ESSM. It should have the range of 8" guns on Des Moines class and carries the same amount of HE. Any ship that equips with Mk.41 can have 4 in each cell and fire them at 1 second interval. The missile can be configured so that it flies designated trajectory by GPS/INS as well as data link to the ship. Multiple-missile barrage can be carried out at different trajectories and still arrive the target simultaneously. An Arleigh Burke can carry nearly 400 of these, though 100 to 200 is more practical number.

However, I don't see why this kind of weapon will be developed due to changing tactical environment. There will be no Normandy-style landing in the future, and if there will be, this kind of  weapons and other solutions will be put on the table.

We had our chance with such a weapon: POLAR (Precision, Over-the-horizon Land Attack Rocket),
a LockMart in-house proposal for a marinized G-MLRS-type rocket, with a warhead up to 90kg and ranges approaching 200km.

Although little info is found online anymore, it's a safe bet that to get the 200km range, it wasn't going to be with the 90kg warhead.

But then again, if those recent developments with throttlable ram-rocket motors prove very favorable, a 9" diameter long range land attack rocket that can quad pack into VLS cells in place of ESSM quadpacks is still an option for the future, and has the pontential to carry larger warheads than even the vaunted LRLAP to greater distances, without the need for the massive AGS turret to fire them.

 

 

And also, don't forget LockMart's other in-house proposal, the multimode seeker-equipped P44, 10 of which can be packed in a pod that occupies the same dimensions as a 6-cell MLRS/HIMARS rocket pod (the P44 being 7" in diameter compared to MLRS' 9" diameter).

Recently, I've seen a couple of sites mentioning a P44/42, although what the /42 part means, I'm still trying to find out.

Needless to say, the P44 offer suggests a warhead up to 28 pounds (a metal-augmented Hellfire-class warhead), to a range of 70km.

But keep in mind: with future propulsion techniques, more energetic explosives, and improvements in electronics capabilities,

certainly there are plentry of possibilities that we will see these land attack missiles, equipped with all weather day/night sensors, that can be carried by the several dozens/few hundreds on any number of ships.

We may not see the idea of the Arsenal Ship surface again (at least not on par with a ship the size of the DDG1000), but mini-Arsenal Ships are certainly foreseeable: frigate-sized, with the primary role of littoral/amphibious support operations (LPD/LPH/LHA escorts?).

In effect, an LCS built with more teeth and enhanced overall capabilities in a similar-sized hull.

(Personally, I don't see everyone going modular like the USN is hoping the LCS will succeed at.)