Would it be better to build more Burkes rather than DDG 1000s?

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

doggtag lost in the conversion... 3/27/2008 7:16:05 AM

And as far as payload goes, this missile is competing with LRLAP and ERGM, not POLAR or ATACMS, so the 28kg P44 warhead is perfectly acceptable to me.

28 pounds, not 28kg.
A 28kg warhead ( ~ 61&3/4 pounds) wouldn't have me complaining one bit, though, if we get to keep the 70km range (37.8 nautical still outranges the majority of any other tube artillery).

Quote Reply

B.Smitty 3/27/2008 8:10:39 AM

Yes doggtag, you are right. The Hellfire MAC warhead is 28 pounds, not kgs. I misspoke.

Quote Reply

doggtag lost in the translation... 3/27/2008 8:12:12 AM

Points well taken, Herald.

But who says we need to keep a 40:1 ratio for the whole flight?

Don't the Extended Range versions of Standard SM-2s (and -3 ABMs) drop their booster sections after use?

Would this surface attack round fare any differently?

(Although yeah, a 40:1 does seem extreme.)

Would we really need something in a 6-to-7-inch diameter missile to be 20 feet long to get a comparable payload to ranges equal to or exceeding that of the LRLAP?

(we've already established that an AGS turret needs a lot of barrel clearance for turret traversing, but how deep does the proposed reduced-magazine-capacity model sit into a Burke hull with all its fixin's?)

That Israeli LAR-160-derived naval rocket system (6.3-inch diameter) from the Armada pdf you posted up has the potential to get there (even if not currently in a VLS-friendly format), in a variant that wouldn't need to be 20 feet long to get the job done with futher development of rocket motor-to-warhead size ratios, as well as an adequate fin/strake design (Argentina had a same-diameter CAL-160 under development, carrying a 50kg warhead to 30km in a length of just under 11feet at 110kg weight).

1) The guided version still has a 12 km myopic range and its effective MER is about 12-35 km. That is considerably short of the 100km standoff.

Any SAM or SSM could see incremental range increases if fitted with expendable launch boosters.

2) That doubles the MASS of the rocket.

I think you're over-exaggerating B.Smitty's idea...

3) If anything the step rocket makes the inverted pendulum problem WORSE.

And you are using an existing adapatable VLS. That isn't SYLVER, which stupidly lacks the capacity to adapt electrical interfaces and accept collared launch cells much larger than the crap ASTER. So that leaves you the short, medium, and long versions of the Mark 41 which is so designed to accept a broad family of 21 inch/25+ foot length boosted weapons.

Note that most of the rockets suggested this far are in the 25-60 kn ballistic range and are larger modifications of existing single stage rounds?

Herald

1) Who says we're just going to use the stock model?
Compare the differences between a 7-inch diameter, roughly 5 feet long Hellfire, and a 7-inch diameter, roughly 5 feet long NetFires PAM.

Newer electronics, newer propellant, newer rocket motor design, and other improvements (designed around 1980-1990s tech vs today's tech).

The range improvement of a similar-sized PAM is considerable (4-5 fold), warhead weight similar (~ 10kg, + or - a few pounds; not every Hellfire has the 28-pound Metal Augmented Charge).

But the really impressive bit is when we compare the Hellfire's "antiquated" laser seeker to the PAM's multimode seeker.

Why then can't we incorporate such technologies into a new generation SSM of 16cm/6.3-inch diameter?

The P44 is almost there now (only about 2/3 of an inch larger in diameter, multimode seeker, etc).

2) That effect doesn't stop us from using boosted SM-2s and SM-3s, does it?

Plus, consider also the fact that a number of surface attack cruise missiles (Tomahawks, Harpoons, countless others) do have to use a booster to get off the launcher and up to flight configuration (wings out, turbine fired up), yet we don't hound about the additional weight there.

Read a little on Werner von Braun and grasp his ideas of multistage rockets, as to why it makes no sense to do everything as single-stage systems, because there's no point carrying the extra weight of a spent, empty missile casing once fuel is used up (how long a chunk of that LRLAP, ERGM, and BTERM was

Quote Reply

B.Smitty 3/27/2008 9:22:03 AM

Another thing to consider here is that we're comparing AGS to a 61-cell VLS/Mk45 combo.

Though it would weigh significantly more, I bet the Mk45 could be replaced by another 32 cell VLS.

If so, the resulting 93 cell VLS could carry 372 POLARS - more than the AGS's 320 LRLAPS in a similar volume/deckspace. And each POLAR has a much larger warhead and is longer ranged than a LRLAP.

I would still prefer to keep the Mk45 and develop a smaller missile, but if we are just doing a strict VLS to AGS comparison, I think the VLS will win on volume and deckspace, and deliver larger, longer-ranged, more effective munitions at the same time.

Quote Reply

ArtyEngineer 3/27/2008 11:12:45 AM

Guys,

just remember that for the purposes of naval gynfire support to troops in contact a larger warhead is not always better.

Quote Reply

B.Smitty 3/27/2008 11:22:09 AM

Guys,

just remember that for the purposes of naval gynfire support to troops in contact a larger warhead is not always better.

True, but there's nothing stopping us from downgrading POLAR's warhead if it is too large, or developing a smaller, 4-packed missile.

My point was that the dense-pack nature of VLS can out-volume and out-deckspace AGS, even if its munitions are larger and less efficient. There's just very little wasted space.

Of course a 93 cell VLS will certainly be heavier. And there's still the reloading issue.

Quote Reply

flamingknives 3/27/2008 2:25:25 PM

P44 would do what you want, as long as you can make sure it doesn't spew hydrochloric acid over your nice boat.

Quote Reply

Herald12345 Smitty, you keep jumping all over then place. 3/27/2008 2:30:51 PM

I want some solid numbers, not this rocket or that rocket.

What SIZE of artillery rocket do you plan?

For me the largest baseline is the STANDARD RGM 165 LASM which actually is a STANDARD rocket that can come slamming down on you as an artillery rocket..

Specifications

Note: Data given by several sources show slight variations. Figures given below may therefore be inaccurate.

Data for RGM-165A:

Length	4.72 m (15 ft 6 in)
Finspan	1.07 m (42.3 in)
Diameter	0.34 m (13.5 in)
Weight	620 kg (1370 lb)
Speed	Mach 3.5
Range	280 km (150 nm)
Propulsion	Thiokol MK 104 dual-thrust solid-fueled rocket
Warhead	135 kg (300 lb) MK 125 blast-fragmentation

Composite data from: source....

It more or less gives you an upper bound on what to expect from a standard medium length Mark 41 VLS.

And it is not to far off from what you could expect from a large ATACM. configured to fit a Mark 41 VLS.

Now as to that 6 inch diameter/15 foot rocket? That is 30/1. You still need a step rocket to get a decent warhead out to 100 kilometers , and you still have the inverted pendelum problem at the stage joint . What are you going to lob with your 30/1 rocket? At that kind of money, $100,000+ a round, you'd better have a cargo bus that can disperse bomblets or a bunker killer unitary warhead or a DP unitary warhead. Most of your rocket cost is going to guidance electronics, fusing and actuator motors and propellant CASING to steer the rocket into a CEP of less than 10 meters.

Note that I picked the 6 inch diameter rocket, but you can use the 7 inch. Once you get above 6 inches [ninepacks] or diameter per rocket you get into quadpacks. The reason is that you have to use sleeves for each rocket to prevent sympathetic ignition or detonation of the adjacent rocket in the same cell. I wasn't kidding when I said you would only be able to use quadpack liner solutions here. This is basic engineering. All of these safety concerns add up and it costs more space than traditional ammunition shell storage. with less benefit in cost or throw range per projectile to us..

Never mind the size of the bang at the other end which only makes economic sense in a rocket; if it is a big bang.

Herald

Quote Reply

B.Smitty 3/27/2008 5:25:11 PM

Herald,

My point is I think you can develop a VLS solution that uses roughly the same volume as an AGS plus 320 round magazine, but delivers more munitions - be they POLAR, or lengthened P44, or whatever.

I don't particularly care what missile we end up using. If we can develop a nine-packable missile, great. We can keep the Mk45 mount and stuff more shots in each cell. If we have to stick with POLAR, we can still have 244 rounds in a 61 cell VLS. If we are willing to toss the Mk45, then we can add another 32 cells to bump it up to 372 POLARS.

But in any case, VLS is more volume efficient than AGS/LRLAP, and far more flexible.

Developing suitable missiles and reloading at sea are the biggest hurdles.

At least that's how it seems to me.

Quote Reply

Herald12345 Lockheed's Polar the numbers. 3/27/2008 6:36:51 PM

Data on POLAR from LockMart

Missile Speed (Ballistic Flight):	1,602 knots (1,850 mph / 2,967 kph).
Maximum Effective Range:	120 nautical miles (138.6 miles / 222.3 km)
Weight:	1,652 lbs. (750 kg).
Missile Length:	13 ft. 4 in (4 m).
Missile Diameter:	10 in (25 cm).
Missile Cost:	$60,000 (Cluster warhead) /$ 87,000 (Top Attack munitions) / 115,000 (Earth Penetrator Unitary D/P).

You want to crunch those numbers or do you want me to do it for you?

Herald

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT