Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Would it be better to build more Burkes rather than DDG 1000s?
Charles99    3/17/2008 6:53:39 PM
Or an incremental improvement of hte Burke? Given the economy and the already high expense of the DDG-1000's, we might end up with a very small number of high end platforms. The Burkes aren't going to be as capable, but on the other hand, we might be able to build more of them, and I'd lay odds that they'll still be the most powerful surface combatant on the oceans for a good long time. Would it make sense to go for more of the good as opposed to a little of hte best, or does the DDG-1000 give such a tremendous leap in capability that it would be better to buy them, even if only a few?
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13   NEXT
Herald12345    Barrage versus guided munitions.   3/19/2008 5:28:56 PM
We've decided on guidance.

No matter how you figure it a gun is a more efficient user of propellant than a missile. So if you can build a gun to the range and accuracy specifications required you will carry more rounds than if you use rockets simply from the propellant efficiency use aspect.

I am not in favor of the Burke for three reasons.
a. Not enough electricity for the new radars and rockets coming into service.
b. Not enough room for the new radars.and rockets  coming into service.
c. Not strong enough hull to carry a turbo-electric drive, the very heavy radars, and the new rockets coming into service.

There are good reasons for a 12000 tonne+ hull.

Herald   
 
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       3/19/2008 6:02:09 PM


No matter how you figure it a gun is a more efficient user of propellant than a missile. So if you can build a gun to the range and accuracy specifications required you will carry more rounds than if you use rockets simply from the propellant efficiency use aspect.


I was under the impression that the advantage of the gun over the rocket, was in the gun burning all the propellant in the cartridge, while the rocket munition has to carry the weight of the propellent with it.  I didn't realise the faster burning cartridge propellant was otherwise more efficient or lighter et al?
 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty       3/19/2008 6:53:56 PM



At the max renages this gun would lob regular "Dumb" shells, the dispersion IMHO would make the system suitable for harrasing fire at best.  The number of rounds needed for destruction/neutralisation goes WAY up!!!!!



Sure, at 80+nm (max LRLAP range), your chance of hitting anything remotely useful with an unguided round is effectively zero.

But there will be numerous situations well within the range of unguided artillery rounds - even "lightly" guided rounds using PGK fuzes.   Think "Five-inch Friday...".
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       3/19/2008 7:17:36 PM




No matter how you figure it a gun is a more efficient user of propellant than a missile. So if you can build a gun to the range and accuracy specifications required you will carry more rounds than if you use rockets simply from the propellant efficiency use aspect.



I was under the impression that the advantage of the gun over the rocket, was in the gun burning all the propellant in the cartridge, while the rocket munition has to carry the weight of the propellent with it.  I didn't realise the faster burning cartridge propellant was otherwise more efficient or lighter et al?

You get more work out of the propellant by CONFINING it so that the work isn't dispersed into open air. More A<<<<<<<<means more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>B  as Newton's third law takes effect.

So you use LESS propellant to throw a given mass a given distance at a given velocity; as well as not need to encase the propellant for the ride.

Faster burning propellant also has its advantages if the gun barrel can stand the pressure of gas expansion.

Lots of stuff going on there that makes the gun better than the rocket for pure ballistic cargo delivery.

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       3/19/2008 7:30:11 PM


You get more work out of the propellant by CONFINING it so that the work isn't dispersed into open air. More A<<<<<<<<means more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>B  as Newton's third law takes effect.


But, the fuel is also confined in a rocket, by the nozzle the expansive gasses are escaping out of?
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer       3/19/2008 7:35:52 PM




You get more work out of the propellant by CONFINING it so that the work isn't dispersed into open air. More A<<<<<<<<means more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>B  as Newton's third law takes effect.



But, the fuel is also confined in a rocket, by the nozzle the expansive gasses are escaping out of?

Yes but its "Reacting" as it burns against the atmosphere as opposed to a contained volume in teh case of a gun tube.
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       3/19/2008 7:36:22 PM
Yimmy, gun chamber pressure is much higher than you can obtain with a rocket, simply because of the amount of structure you have in a gun to contain it that you cannot have in a rocket.

More pressure with a propellant means a faster burn and more energy.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       3/19/2008 7:39:29 PM




You get more work out of the propellant by CONFINING it so that the work isn't dispersed into open air. More A<<<<<<<<means more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>B  as Newton's third law takes effect.



But, the fuel is also confined in a rocket, by the nozzle the expansive gasses are escaping out of?

The specific work from confined pressure you can get out of a venturi of 5 calibers is never as much as you get out of a tube of thirty or more calibers.

Visualize it this way.  Take a garden nozzle . Which recoils harder in your hand? Spread stream or narrow confined stream?

Pinch the hose, then release. Notice the greater "kick"?

Herald

 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty       3/19/2008 7:54:18 PM
The internal ballistics of a gun certainly are more efficient than that of a pure rocket, but AGS can't fire a pure ballistic round 84nm.  The unguided, non-assisted round for AGS only had a (planned) range of 20nm or so.  AGS needs the rocket-propelled LRLAP to go the rest of the way.

So in effect, the gun is just a booster.  The rocket appears to do most of the work. 

So now we have the worst of all worlds, IMHO. 

We have all the added complexity and weight of a big gun just to boost a rocket-propelled missile.  And we have a missile who's engineering and construction is made far more difficult and costly to survive those efficient internal ballistics. 

Why aren't we using POLAR again? 

 
Quote    Reply

dwightlooi       3/20/2008 12:46:35 AM

We've decided on guidance.

No matter how you figure it a gun is a more efficient user of propellant than a missile. So if you can build a gun to the range and accuracy specifications required you will carry more rounds than if you use rockets simply from the propellant efficiency use aspect.

I am not in favor of the Burke for three reasons.
a. Not enough electricity for the new radars and rockets coming into service.
b. Not enough room for the new radars.and rockets  coming into service.
c. Not strong enough hull to carry a turbo-electric drive, the very heavy radars, and the new rockets coming into service.

There are good reasons for a 12000 tonne+ hull.

Herald   

Steel is cheap, it is the stuff that goes into a ship and their R&D that is costing billions. Cold rolled high steel plates are about $850 per ton a 12,000 ton ship costs $3.4 million more than a 9,000 ton ship. In the context of $2 billion destroyers we are talking about larger displacement is 0.17% -- less that 1/5 of 1 percent of the cost differential.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy