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
B.Smitty       3/28/2008 11:46:08 AM



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.

I have to assume LM took the Mk41 cell weight constraints into account when proposing a four-packed POLAR.  Otherwise the concept was dead before it started.

Given that, I don't see anything else in the stats you posted that gives me pause for preferring an all VLS NSFS over using AGS (other than the previously mentioned reloading issue and shipboard use of "dirty" MLRS motors). 

A wider, shorter POLAR is actually preferable, IMHO, as long as the Army can use it in MLRS launchers, and the Navy can four-pack it in Mk41 cells.  It offers the chance for a larger Army/Navy buy, reducing prices for both.

The price is within reason, especially since there is no AGS design and retrofit costs.  And I seriously doubt the limited-run LRLAP would be any cheaper, regardless of what the brochures say.  Excalibur isn't.  ERGM certainly wouldn't have been. 




 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    good point, nyetneinnon   3/28/2008 12:43:25 PM

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

 

This one has always perked my curiosity:
All this talk about littoral this and OTH that,
but the only application we see the US having anti-radar systems is from aircraft, namely HARM and its newer AARGM derivative.
Haven't seen anything at all in at least the past decade or so about Standard ARM (phased out post- Viet Nam?).
 
Why are there no surfaced-launched, even sub-launched, antiradar missiles intended to wipe out an adversary's coastal ADA systems on the edge of a naval assault?
Is it solely because aircraft can carry the sensors and are more likely to trigger an adversary into even turning on his ADA radars?
Why can't decoys equipped with ELINT gear be used, running jackrabbit into the enemy's airspace and tricking him to light up his radars, only to be met in kind by whatever naval vessels are nearby enough to launch ARMs?
 
Used to see mention of the SideARM, an AIM-9 derivative,
and thoughts of a radar homing head for a Hellfire variant,
but nothing recently.
Have these all fallen by the wayside?
Are HARM and AARGM our only current hardkill anti-radar systems?
Is Tacit Rainbow still around?
Seems to me that the NetFire's LAM's loitering ability (70km range or 30 minutes' loiter time) would've been the perfect "predatory decoy" (if that's an applicable-enough term) that could flood an enemy's airspace, just waiting for even one radar to activate.
If it would be possible to network these missiles all together while in flight (even linking them to C4I centers to provide realtime EW data over an entire battlespace),
then their ELINT coverage area would be massive, and either human controllers or threat analysis software could cue up the nearest missile to strike the offending radar.
 
Saw or read a scifi story with a similar idea: these drones were scattered all over the skies by the hundreds, and if anything of an apparently threatening nature was detected within their range, a drone was assigned to engage the threat, either with a small directed energy weapon or as a kamikaze.
Unfortunately for us though, the drones were powered by extremely long duration power systems (mini fusion reactors or some other exotic source, coupled to anti-grav generation to stay afloat)
that allowed them to patrol in their scattered cloud formations for weeks, even months on end.
Networked together, they collectively could defend or patrol an area thousands of square miles.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    good point, nyetneinnon   3/28/2008 1:07:07 PM



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........

B.Smitty posted up SM-2 specs (single stage MR, I suspect).
Solid propellant, giving considerably more range than the earlier propellant type used in SM-1s.
Physically bigger than POLAR (13.5" vs 9" or 9.8" or 10" or whatever).
Probably doesn't have a lot of dead empty space, either.
Yet still lighter than a POLAR?
 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty       3/28/2008 2:17:44 PM


This one has always perked my curiosity:

All this talk about littoral this and OTH that,

but the only application we see the US having anti-radar systems is from aircraft, namely HARM and its newer AARGM derivative.

Haven't seen anything at all in at least the past decade or so about Standard ARM (phased out post- Viet Nam?).

 

Why are there no surfaced-launched, even sub-launched, antiradar missiles intended to wipe out an adversary's coastal ADA systems on the edge of a naval assault?

Is it solely because aircraft can carry the sensors and are more likely to trigger an adversary into even turning on his ADA radars?

Why can't decoys equipped with ELINT gear be used, running jackrabbit into the enemy's airspace and tricking him to light up his radars, only to be met in kind by whatever naval vessels are nearby enough to launch ARMs?

 

Used to see mention of the SideARM, an AIM-9 derivative,

and thoughts of a radar homing head for a Hellfire variant,

but nothing recently.

Have these all fallen by the wayside?

Are HARM and AARGM our only current hardkill anti-radar systems?

Is Tacit Rainbow still around?

Seems to me that the NetFire's LAM's loitering ability (70km range or 30 minutes' loiter time) would've been the perfect "predatory decoy" (if that's an applicable-enough term) that could flood an enemy's airspace, just waiting for even one radar to activate.

If it would be possible to network these missiles all together while in flight (even linking them to C4I centers to provide realtime EW data over an entire battlespace),

then their ELINT coverage area would be massive, and either human controllers or threat analysis software could cue up the nearest missile to strike the offending radar.

 

Saw or read a scifi story with a similar idea: these drones were scattered all over the skies by the hundreds, and if anything of an apparently threatening nature was detected within their range, a drone was assigned to engage the threat, either with a small directed energy weapon or as a kamikaze.

Unfortunately for us though, the drones were powered by extremely long duration power systems (mini fusion reactors or some other exotic source, coupled to anti-grav generation to stay afloat)

that allowed them to patrol in their scattered cloud formations for weeks, even months on end.

Networked together, they collectively could defend or patrol an area thousands of square miles.


The Israelis have use their surface-launched Harpys as ARMs for years.

There's a new system called Cutlass, which is based on the Harpy airframe, but with updated electronics.

Earlier, I mentioned designing a 10" diameter mini-cruise missile for VLS quad-packing.  Developing it with multiple warhead, sensor and range/loiter profiles would allow them to perform as long-ranged, longer endurance LAM/LOCAAS/Dominators/Cutlasses.

If you're worried about cruise missile attacks from an area of shore, you could preemptively launch a group of these hunting munitions, with ARM, ESM, or EO/IR/MMW sensors.  They could search for launchers and their targetting systems autonomously.  At minimum, having a bunch of small buzz-bombs flying overhead for a few hours might keep the launchers hidden.


 
Quote    Reply

Charles99       3/28/2008 6:05:59 PM
The problem with that is while such mini-cruise missiels woudl be useful, I agree (mainly to give the LCS a better punch then it has so far). Our recent history on developing weapons is...spotty.  What we need, now is something that can be fielded in useful numbers and sadly, from recent events, i think that pretty much precludes any "new weapons systems" that are anything more tha minor tweaks of current ones.


 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty       3/28/2008 8:22:21 PM

The problem with that is while such mini-cruise missiels woudl be useful, I agree (mainly to give the LCS a better punch then it has so far). Our recent history on developing weapons is...spotty.  What we need, now is something that can be fielded in useful numbers and sadly, from recent events, i think that pretty much precludes any "new weapons systems" that are anything more tha minor tweaks of current ones.



What would you propose?  TLAM?  Too expensive.  LASM?  Maybe, but only one per VLS cell.  Land Attack ESSM?  Who knows how much they will cost. 

There really aren't many existing, or nearly existing options.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    The MLRS had to work as a carrier vehicle to sell it to the Army as well as the Navy   3/28/2008 8:32:01 PM
This one I don't get, either.
 
The US Army seems quite content with the MLRS rocket family, either as unguided submunition carriers or, more recently because it offers the accuracy, in the GMLRS with, principally, a unitary warhead.
 
The US Army uses the stock GMLRS and can reach 70km with a 90kg warhead.
The USN has what comparable system that is as effective, both in combat performance and price range?
 
Here's  Designation-Systems.Net's MLRS  data table:

Specifications

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

Data for M26, M26A1, M26A2, M30, XM31:

  M26 M26A1 M26A2 M30 XM31
Length 3.94 m (12 ft 11 in)
Diameter 22.7 cm (8.94 in)
Weight 306 kg (675 lb) 296 kg (650 lb) ?
Range 32 km (20 miles) > 45 km (28 miles) > 60 km (37 miles)
Propulsion Solid-fueled rocket
Warhead 644 M77 DPICM bomblets 518 M85 DPICM bomblets 518 M77 DPICM bomblets 404 M85 DPICM bomblets 90 kg (200 lb) HE
 
Also note that this data is a few years' behind, as the XM31 unitary warhead G-MLRS rocket no longer carries the "X" for expiremental/prototype. They're using them now in Iraq (haven't read anything about A-stan, though).
 
What land-based targets does the USN anticipate can't be engaged with the very same rocket the US Army is having quite a success rate with now, either as a submunition-equipped version or a unitary warhead?
I'd have figured that, generally, both services would be engaging the same kinds of targets: buildings, fortifications, vehicles principally.
Pinpoint targets such as these will be hard-pressed to survive one of those 90kg warheads.
And although the same Army rocket doesn't meet the range preferences that the LRLAP is supposed to offer
(which is going to be cheaper? a multiple round time-on-target LRLAP attack, or a single POLAR whose single warhead is about 5-fold that of an LRLAP?),
the Army rockets still outperform any current USN deck guns and the shells currently available to fire,
and the next nearest surface attack system is up there with the Harpoon/SLAM family, then the highly expensive Tomahawk series that is overmatch for any of the threats currently being engaged by them.
But Tomahawks are too cost prohibitive to use all the time.
 
Quote    Reply

nyetneinnon    thanks for response, dogg   3/28/2008 11:50:30 PM
I have a fundamental problem with the whole military industrial complex/DoD marketed and envisioned Littoral ship concept first off.  If the coastal theatre target is vital enough to strike, then it will likely be heavily defended by modern mine, ground based Anti-ship missile, and air-launched anti-ship defenses.  By definition, I have not been sold on need to spend masses of cash on this sexy looking but impractical concept, in the end.  I see it as a sort of JSF 'wow' equivalent of the seas.
 
As for the AGM-88E being surface launched therefor, or sub-launched... either stick with 3rd world targets if launching it from a USN destroyer/cruiser near shore, or consider purchasing Euro built air-independent type non-nuc mini-subs as a possible launch platform for many ordnance (for the littoral) instead.
 
I concur with your idea about decoy ELINT tactics to shed target coordinates, though.
 
I would envision Amphib LS and carrier launched Mariner/Reaper drone squadrons armed with the MALD/88E config, 1,000+ miles away.  Perhaps add a JSOW-ER for good measure?  MALD could also send source coordinates back to ship and Rail guns could be used as well, instead of VLS?
 
I can't agree enough however, with the other poster, who supports sticking with upgraded off-the-shelf tech for this new capability, rather than spending countless $billions of R&D for new systems which 90% of the time will just get canceled in the end, due to technical imperfections and/or cost overruns.
 
I'm not a techno jargon guy as you can probably see and am not in this industry.  So this is just my intuition.  Cheers
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       3/29/2008 4:45:33 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........


B.Smitty posted up SM-2 specs (single stage MR, I suspect).

Solid propellant, giving considerably more range than the earlier propellant type used in SM-1s.

Physically bigger than POLAR (13.5" vs 9" or 9.8" or 10" or whatever).

Probably doesn't have a lot of dead empty space, either.

Yet still lighter than a POLAR?

Land Attack Standard Missile is a converted SM-2. I suggest that is a better fit.

And since the POLAR warhead is still 404 bomblets or a DP unitary as designed into the MLRS ER rocket, I suspect that the propellant weight and warhead weight could be very HEAVY. As I said I expected a wieght all up of about 850 pounds. I'll ask again.

Herald

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    LOnd attack SSM rockets are not naval weapons.   3/29/2008 4:59:09 AM
As to the other criticisms........ a terminally guided naval shell that hit you  100+kilometers away is  ballisticaly harder to stop than a rocket.

1. Not every ARM is openly discussed
2. Based on ASTER and the French radar fiascos  I prefer the American tech tree. Unless its a specific British, German, or Italian system [Meteor, RAM, SmartL  and Sampson]or a debugged French item like Matra Magic, I prefer American because it works.
3. You engage fixed sites with expendables, the cheaper, the better.
4. Naval is NOT Army. the atmospheric weather and the terrain in the battlespace for one is DIFFERENT. Rockets and RADAR do funny things over water.

Herald

 

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



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics