Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Tinkering with the Arleighe Burkes?
kirby1    5/31/2009 5:41:14 PM
So the navy has decided to continue production of the Arleighe Burkes indefinitely. Thats a good idea seeing as how they are pretty decent boats, but I wonder if the navy will tinker with the design any more then the standard expected improvements over time such as better engines, more powerful electronics and wiring, or cost cutting measures? Is there any room for any "Special" classes in the AB? Perhaps a landing support/ low intensity conflict version that sacs' its VLS tubes for heavier main guns, and additional 25mm-30mm guns. Replace the VLS with a deckmounted Netfires box for zapping surface or seaside targets? Another option, do you see certain ideas from the Zumwhalt class wandering over to be placed on the new ABs? The peripheral launchers seem kind of nifty versus sticking a box of missiles directly over your keel. I like how they're designed to vent explosions outwards away from the hull in the event of a catastrophic failure or battle damage. or will the navy play it safe and keep building these ships largely unchanged?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
benellim4       5/31/2009 6:17:58 PM
We already have special classes of AB's. Flight I, Flight II, Flight IIA and Flight IIA with RMS.
 
Your average AB already has a Mk15 CIWS Block 1B aft and Mk38 (all are eventually getting the Mod 2 version) port and starboard, in addition to numerous .50 cal and M240 mounts. 

Here's what I would do, along the lines you're thinking of. I would replace the crane VLS modules and insert PAMS modules. For the Flight IIAs that don't have the crane, I'd just replace on of the modules forward and one aft with PAMs.
Yes you give up a bit of firepower, but you get a needed capability in return, without sacrificing too much.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Uh NO.   6/1/2009 7:46:13 AM

We already have special classes of AB's. Flight I, Flight II, Flight IIA and Flight IIA with RMS.

Agreed.

Your average AB already has a Mk15 CIWS Block 1B aft and Mk38 (all are eventually getting the Mod 2 version) port and starboard, in addition to numerous .50 cal and M240 mounts. 

Agreed.

Here's what I would do, along the lines you're thinking of. I would replace the crane VLS modules and insert PAMS modules. For the Flight IIAs that don't have the crane, I'd just replace on of the modules forward and one aft with PAMs.
 
$ Billion warship designed to fight against speedboats? That's not what we built those DESTROYERS to do. That is why you have frigates and gunboats. 
 
Yes you give up a bit of firepower, but you get a needed capability in return, without sacrificing too much.

You give up a bodyguard ship for littoral capability that you can do better from an LPH helo carrier and coast guard cutters.


 
Quote    Reply

benellim4    Uh yes   6/1/2009 10:22:15 AM
$ Billion warship designed to fight against speedboats? That's not what we built those DESTROYERS to do. That is why you have frigates and gunboats. 
 -We build those destroyers to defend carrier battle groups and convoys against waves of Soviet ASCMs launched from Backfire bombers, but that's not going to happen. We have or will have 62 DDGs, 30 Frigates (and those are nuetered), 22 Cruisers. The class of ship most likely to encounter a FAC/FIAC threat is a DDG, just by numbers. And we won't pick the time/place of the attack, they will. They need to be able to adequately respond to the threat so one of those cheap speedboats doesn't knock out the billion dollar destroyer.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       6/1/2009 11:15:34 AM

$ Billion warship designed to fight against speedboats? That's not what we built those DESTROYERS to do. That is why you have frigates and gunboats. 


 -We build those destroyers to defend carrier battle groups and convoys against waves of Soviet ASCMs launched from Backfire bombers, but that's not going to happen. We have or will have 62 DDGs, 30 Frigates (and those are neutered), 22 Cruisers. The class of ship most likely to encounter a FAC/FIAC threat is a DDG, just by numbers. And we won't pick the time/place of the attack, they will. They need to be able to adequately respond to the threat so one of those cheap speedboats doesn't knock out the billion dollar destroyer.


You just summarized the problem. we are not building the correct ship for the littoral.areas. Those FACs/FIACS should never see blue water without running into ASuW helos and smallboys packing autocannon and PAMS.

James Hasik is mostly ignoring the cost factors, but he has a point, Small ships because of rockets in a box can fight effectively  at the limits of a destroyer's air defense coverage. The chief weaknesses of mine warfare and submarines are best left to URPVs and best supported from a base ship designed to support such underwater remotely piloted vehicles. Patrolling is a gunboat mission. 
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       6/1/2009 12:34:13 PM
No question that we have to build actual frigates, not LCS, IMO. However, we also need to be able to address the threats we have with the forces we have on hand until such time as American shipbuilding performs a rectal-cranial extraction.
 
Quote    Reply

Charles99       6/2/2009 5:26:27 AM
I wonder if a future model Burke might include more facilities to handle UAV's, including armed ones, which might make them more useful for "patrolling" without the ship itself getting to close to shore.
 
 Of course here's a question-- is there any chance the USN is going to have a decent frigate?  the LCS certainly doesn't count.

 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       6/3/2009 9:58:07 AM
We should just field an updated Perry design with twin screws, a VLS for ESSM, and more guns.  No need for Aegis or anything crazy like that, just a basic reliable frigate with room for two SH-60 sized helos.  There are plenty of really affordable systems out there to make it effective without building massive stuff into the hull -- make it networkable with CEC capability, give it some mast-mounted IR sensors and a radar like Sea Giraffe, and it would do fine.
 
Problem is any time we try to design a simple / austere ship class we instead wind up either turning it into a technological Noah's Ark (DDG-1000) or a useless floating laboratory (LCS).
 
Quote    Reply

Carl D.       6/15/2009 3:09:27 PM

We should just field an updated Perry design with twin screws, a VLS for ESSM, and more guns.  No need for Aegis or anything crazy like that, just a basic reliable frigate with room for two SH-60 sized helos.  There are plenty of really affordable systems out there to make it effective without building massive stuff into the hull -- make it networkable with CEC capability, give it some mast-mounted IR sensors and a radar like Sea Giraffe, and it would do fine.


 

Problem is any time we try to design a simple / austere ship class we instead wind up either turning it into a technological Noah's Ark (DDG-1000) or a useless floating laboratory (LCS).
Heck, just take the Spanish follow-on Santa Maria FFG class as a starting point, single shaft with retractable azipods for maneuvering and auxiliary propulsion, slightly bigger beam and extra weight reserve for later improvements. If you feel the need for some lowering of RCS that came be done without breaking the bank and VLS on a new build isn't a problem.
 
The LCS is still a new class and it seems that it has a lot of bugs both in systems and doctine to shake out.  The cost per unit for what should be a cheap, surge constructable vessel though it can be argued that as the first ship is going to be high, if they don't build a huge number is going to not amortize well for the program life.  That being said, there needs to be something in between the blue water FFGs/DDGs and the PCs. 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics