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

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: 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

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 depends, Herald. What is trying to be proven by crunching these numbers, exactly? 3/27/2008 8:44:11 PM

Missile Speed (Ballistic Flight):

1,602 knots (1,850 mph / 2,967 kph).

Sounds about right, if based around the MLRS rocket.

Maximum Effective Range:

120 nautical miles (138.6 miles / 222.3 km)

Originally (few years back), we found data and sources suggesting 200km, but I won't knock an extra 20 or so.

Weight:	1,652 lbs. (750 kg).
Missile Length:	13 ft. 4 in (4 m).
Missile Diameter:	10 in (25 cm).

OK, now here's where it gets me.

Here's Boeing's pdf on the Harpoon Block III.

weight: 1523 pounds (just under 691kg, surface launch) .

length: ~183 inches (15&1/4 feet, almost 2 feet longer than POLAR).

diameter: 13.5 inches ( ~343mm).

Very confusing when you look at it, because:

-I was certain that the MLRS-derived POLAR was the same 227mm (a hair under 9 inches) as M26 and M30 rockets.

But did they actually go and build a version around Raytheon's ESSM's 10-inch diameter motor section?

More power to them if they did, as it should then have a tad more capability growth potential than a body an inch less in diameter.

-Harpoon is obviously physically bigger: 50% greater diameter, and up to about a foot and a half longer (surface-launched version),

carries a much greater warhead, 2&1/2 times as much if you trust the Designation-Systems.Net entry ,

has an actual seeker system (radar) and control computer which allows so many more options than any principally ballistic rocket, so it isn't just solely relying on INS and GPS,

but it actually weighs less than a POLAR?

W T F ?

Is solid propellant that much heavier than a liquid fuel tank and Harpoon's turbine, even to the point the all-up POLAR weight surpasses the larger Harpoon in weight as much as it does?

Does the POLAR then use some kind of metal augmented charge using lead or something?

Something just doesn't seem right.

But yes, for a weight of 750kg each, quadpacking POLARs tops out at, missiles alone, 3000kg.

Which means Mk41 VLS can't accomodate it.

Missile Cost:

$60,000 (Cluster warhead) /$ 87,000 (Top Attack munitions) / 115,000 (Earth Penetrator Unitary D/P).

Won't argue the costs, but US government federal logistics (FEDLOG) sources indicate that the going rate of an Excalibur artillery shell is more than this suggestion for a unitary-equipped POLAR.

Over in the artillery forums (Excalibur clips), Smoke_WP says that FOIA-disclosed sources are suggesting $150K for an Excalibur.

How much exactly is the production-ready LRLAP again?

Quote Reply

B.Smitty 3/27/2008 9:14:08 PM

I agree doggtag, something doesn't add up with that weight.

SM-2
Diameter: 13.5 inches
Length: 14.5 feet
Weight: 1380lbs.

How does a skinnier, shorter missile end up 300lbs heavier?

Quote Reply

Herald12345 3/27/2008 9:57:02 PM

1. Harpoon is a turbo-jet. You don't compare a jet propelled flying missile with a solid propellant ballistic rocket.
2. Denser propellant=greater "weight" for a SPR.

Herald

Quote Reply

B.Smitty 3/27/2008 11:03:49 PM

PAC-3
Diameter: 10 inches
Length: 17 feet 1 inch
Weight: 700 lbs

ESSM
Diameter: 10 inch motor, 8 inch guidance section
Length: 12 feet
Weight: 620 lbs

Why wouldn't POLAR be in this range?

750 lbs sounds a lot more reasonable than 750 kg.

Quote Reply

B.Smitty 3/27/2008 11:17:18 PM

Herald,

Did you get those stats from here? This is a sci-fi game site.

Quote Reply

B.Smitty 3/27/2008 11:36:57 PM

AGM-88 HARM

Diameter: 10 inches
Length: 13ft 8 inches
Weight: 800 lbs

Quote Reply

nyetneinnon 3/28/2008 12:16:03 AM

AGM-88E AARGM is where the counter-force is at anyway.

But back to the topic... Burke, Burke, Burke, Burke.. baby.

Install the new engines, install the new radar suites and electronics. Please don't dupe the American taxpayer into thinking they new hull at twice the cost or whatever, in order to have the next gen electronic and propulsion upgrades!

Call it a Burke block II :)

Build an extra 5 for extra deployment coverage.

It's how you arm your ship, and outfit the radar/sonar suites, etc, that matters. Not how you can redesign the wheel for the greatest cost!! Please!

Big thing though, is to build the next Burkes around the weapon systems you need. Skyguard Lasers, RIM-161, SM-6, 155mm, RIM-116 HAS. Include those, plus the latest torpedo system, and you're good to go.

Peace.

Quote Reply

Herald12345 No. 3/28/2008 4:04:37 AM

Herald

Quote Reply

B.Smitty 3/28/2008 8:00:23 AM

No?

Do you have a PDF you can share about POLAR? Information about it is very hard to come by on the Web.

Another problem I have with those statistics is length. The other information I've seen indicated POLAR was an MLRS rocket with a 30% extension. That would make it closer to 15-17 feet. The regular M26 rocket is already 3.96m, so the 4m length quoted in your statistics doesn't jibe with these other references.

Did they propose totally junking the MLRS rocket airframe and building a 10" diameter weapon with the same length?

Quote Reply

Herald12345 3/28/2008 11:04:12 AM

No?

Information I have is from LockMart, who appear to have just paper studied thing the thing to this point.

Do you have a PDF you can share about POLAR? Information about it is very hard to come by on the Web.

No. Industry source data.

Another problem I have with those statistics is length. The other information I've seen indicated POLAR was an MLRS rocket with a 30% extension. That would make it closer to 15-17 feet. The regular M26 rocket is already 3.96m, so the 4m length quoted in your statistics doesn't jibe with these other references.

Fatter case shorter length.

Did they propose totally junking the MLRS rocket airframe and building a 10" diameter weapon with the same length?

At 25 centimeters the exact diameter would be approximately 9.8 inches

The original proposal was for a longer barrel: but that was junked when they couldn't get it to fit MLRS to work the way they wanted. The sleeve they wanted to use was the original MLRS, but they needed a fatter rocket to make it work to the range the customer desired, so ces't la vie. The MLRS had to work as a carrier vehicle to sell it to the Army as well as the Navy.

30% is by volume. By those numbers the rocket should be about 400 kilograms total if the rocket maintains constant density. The problem is that as the rocket gets bigger you need to improve the burn and this means you add to the fuel ratio such as using powdered aluminum. THAT is mass. Ammonium perchlorate oxidizer + powdered aluminum + HTPB binder you can easily double the mass of the propellant by weight, until you get a 1500 pound rocket with the same warhead as you get with the GMLS.

Maybe it should be 857 pounds, but that depends on the density of the fuel grain........

And I've said this about three times already.

http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/i/ispsolid.gif">
Well, two more times to go.

Herald

Quote Reply

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