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

B.Smitty 3/29/2008 10:38:54 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.

I've wondered about this. Is it really? And even if it is, does this really matter?

A POLAR is certainly a larger target than a LRLAP, but after a long glide out to 100+km, will LRLAP be going any faster than POLAR? LRLAP's construction might make it hardier, but fins and guidance sections will still be exposed, and even minor damage will knock it off target.

One other thing to consider, the simplest way to overcome terminal defenses is saturate them. AGS can fire 10rnds per minute, permitting a handful of MRSIs out to a fraction of its maximum range. A VLS can fire 1 round per second (roughly), enabling a large number of MRSIs, even out to the munition's maximum range.

So while a larger rocket might make a better target for terminal defenses, many rockets can be fired in a short span of time to overwhelm them.

Quote Reply

doggtag triple n... 3/29/2008 11:22:55 AM

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

That makes 2 of us.
Actually, I do have a good deal of military hardware experience from a repairer's perspective (TOW, Bradley, and similar bits mostly, have recently been toying with quite a bit of commo and computer hardware.

But a majority of my input (however questionable) in any given debate on here (as far as hardware goes) is mostly a lot of what-if speculation, based off years of reading military stuff and compiling a pretty good sized personal library at home (unfortunately, taking up more boxes right now than shelf space) to fall back on for references that aren't always available or as accurate from online sources,

then looking at various success stories of what has been technically accomplished,

and ask, "why can't we do that with this system, then? If the technology works there, why can't we make it work over here also?"

For all NATO STANAGs, joint forces MoUs, and cross-service inter-operability,

you'd think the DoD would have all 4 branches (make it 5, include USCG whenever possible) work a lot closer together on a lot of similarly-related applications, or at least you'd think we'd have started doing it sooner.

Quote Reply

nyetneinnon 3/29/2008 9:56:22 PM

I agree with B.Smitty, in regards to a superior 'swarm' strategy for at least the next 5-10 years, at least, until defenses can counter it. I'd suggest this is superior method to employ rather than all out maximal technological marvel in range/guidance/survivability, etc.

I fully respect Herald's professionalism and his obvious knowledge in both conventional and theoretical.

And Dogg, I fully concur with your conclusion that DoD needs to be broken down into more effective sub-parts of management and operation. Bingo on that one. My profession happens to be in the athletic coaching industry, and this is how I would coach potential talent from the start. Break the skills down into parts, excel in each first, and then allow the best perfected parts find their own way back to an optimal final product.

As far as final systems that I would conclude as being worthy for further specialization and development for joint strike missions are: SLAM-ER, HARPOON, METEOR (as adapted, booster-launched, both SSM/AGM platform), SM-2ER.

Go with what works today... morph a sys, more than reinvent it from scratch... buy as many rounds as possible rather than blowing the budget on R&D mostly.

Don't deny the engineers abilities in morphing a system into what is needed, no matter how unconventional it may seem.

Lastly... back on topic... I'd go with Burke (as previously said), albeit highly upgraded with best overall off-the-shelf modifications engineers can make.

Quote Reply

B.Smitty 3/30/2008 12:55:32 AM

I think we need to build the first two DDG-1000s, validate their advancements, and understand the costs.

There's a lot of technology in them that can be rolled back into the fleet regardless of which platform we choose.

Quote Reply

doggtag 3/30/2008 1:57:11 PM

My thoughts exactly.

Leveraging off the advancements in technology expected to make the Zummwalts such a leap ahead over the Burkes,

is there any doubt then that,

at some point,

we'll better be able to design and build a more efficient (both in fuel economy and electrical output) power plant for vessels smaller than a DDG1000, which would offer considerably more power for a ship the size of a Burke?

(We also need to keep in mind that, much like aircraft and AFV development, the Zummwalt isn't going to be the final naval surface vessel culmination, with never again a follow-on system offering ever-improving capabilities.)

And what about PVLS systems for smaller ships?

Not everyone has a requirement (or wallet) for firing munitions the size the Mk57 can accomodate (singly).

And what about radar improvements and other sensors?

Or improving efficiencies in conducting larger flight ops (manned or UAVs)?

Improvements in automation,

better ship design mentalities that increase survivability with better compartmentalization, duplication of critical systems (electrical runs, fuel lines, fire suppression systems, data nodes, etc)...

Perhaps (hopefully) we'll even gain a good deal of people with experience in designing gun-fired projectiles,

so that any future attempts aren't meant with such dismal cost failures and technical difficulties as we've seen so far.

And any mother-of-all large missile technology that creates very impressive Mk57-launched munitions, that too will certainly find its way down into smaller weapons for lesser vessels.

Another is,

the thought of ever-improving battlespace situational awareness in the CIC.

It used to be bridge officers with charts and binoculars.

Then we went to CRTs and eventually flat panel displays scattered all around the control center, allowing the officer on deck to have as much necessary info on hand as possible: ship operating status, engines, air & surface radars tracks, etc.

I'm anticipating that future naval CICs won't be all Star Trek-like with everyone sitting at positions around the bridge/CIC, commander in the center staring at a big viewer,

but more likely I expect we'll see a total 360º immersive effect: a large central 3D display that shows a holo image of the ship it its current configuration (like an aircraft's altimeter, yaw indicator, and pitch and roll displays all rolled into a 3D representation), with everything around it: air, sea, land, and subsurface, holographically displayed like some giant virtual moving sand table

(remember the battle scenes in Attack of the Clones (Star Wars, Ep 5) where the Trade Federation leaders were watching the two armies engaging each other on holo-projectors?).

It may take the form of being projected over an actual multi-dimensional visual matrix (think 3D movie screen),

or it could even be projected, by considerable advances in holo technologies, as some sort of immersed-in-a-sea-of-war cloud effect completely filling the CIC, where everyone in there can see everything proportionally to where it is outside the ship, generated by light beams to appear as if some sort of ghostly apparations are just floating there inside the command center.

Think of the immersive effect the JSF F-35 helmet is supposedly going to offer (look down at your feet and see out the bottom of your plane), then imagine a ship's command crew having the same abilities projected to them inside the CIC, but without the need for everyone to wear VR-type hemlets to see it all.

Consoles with 2D screens would still most likely be around the edges of the control center, to allow tactical zoom-ins of a given area without affecting the main 3D display.

One could also liken it to the Stellar Cartography science lab in the USS Enterprise NCC 1701-E from the movie Generations, but more along the lines of a tactical system more in tune with what's to be expected from a naval vessel.

As the electronics technology impr

Quote Reply

B.Smitty 4/23/2008 9:02:09 AM

From 2002 Assessment of the Office of Naval Research's Air and Surface Weapons Technology Program , concerning the use of solid-rocket VLS munitions in lieu of gun-launched missiles for volume NSFS,

"The NSB's 1999 assessment of the ASWT program pointed out the obvious application and advantage of solid-rocket-propelled weapons at the longer ranges in lieu of trying to push gun-launched rocket-assisted projectiles or extended-range guided munitions (ERGMs) to ranges that would introduce many other problems (e.g., erosion and logistics). The committee is aware that the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) is working on a naval version of the Army tactical missile system but believes this would offer only an interim and limited capability. The committee was told that there are two obstacles to the use of solid-rocket weapons for volume fire support: (1) the inability to provide an at-sea reload capability and (2) the limited number of launchers and the limited magazine space available onboard most surface combatants. In the committee's view, both of these obstacles are surmountable. Any long-range volume fire from surface ships will require solutions to both problems, yet there is now very little visible work under way to develop the required technology. Some high-payoff technology is sorely needed in this area.

The committee believes that ONR should take the initiative for some imaginative D&I work and analysis on ship-launched missile and stowage/launch concepts for the longer-range fire-support role. As one example, it is estimated that based on a propellant with a specific impulse (Isp) of 265 sec and a mass fraction of 0.85, a single-stage 9-in.-diameter missile less than 10 ft long with a launch gross weight less than 360 lb can accurately deliver a warhead equivalent to a 155 mm gun-launched projectile weighing about 90 lb to a distance of almost 200 nmi in less than 5 minutes. If a four-pack stowage and launch canister can be designed for individual missile cold launch and empty canister jettison, a stack of two four-pack canisters would fit in each existing vertical launch system (VLS) position.⁶ If, say, 32 of 64 VLS positions were assigned for fire support, there would be 256 (32×8) rounds in firing position exclusive of other magazine capacity. A single tier of these launch modules would be ideal for the fast littoral combat ship concept. A second example is a 21-in.-diameter, two-stage missile using the existing type canister and Mk 72 booster as its first stage and the 21-in.-diameter second stage currently under consideration for Standard Missile, third generation (SM-3) growth options. Such a missile with a launch gross weight (LGW) of 5,900 lb could deliver 1,400 lb of munitions to a distance of 375 miles (600 km) in less than 7 minutes. (This LGW is substantially greater than current Standard Missiles and would have to be examined for handling and plenum compatibility.)"

Quote Reply

USN-MID 4/27/2008 6:05:49 AM

More of the good? It's not that simple.

Significant Points:

1)NSFS:

DDG-51 class ships simply cannot perform NSFS the way DDG1000 promises to.

1 5" gun, limited to the "ship's" horizon, good accuracy.

vs.

2 6.1"(155mm) guns, similar accuracy to the Mk45 but over a much greater distance(over the horizon).

You could argue NSFS is "dead," but it is a long neglected capability, and the promise of its revival could bring a lot more support...justified or not.

2)Littoral Survivability

SPY is supposedly less reliable when close to the coast, and it also has trouble with lower altitude targets. In contrast, the radar systems of DDG1000 are being designed to operate in this environment.

There's also the issue of stealth. Even the Flight IIAs, which are more stealthy, still are visibly less "smooth" than the DDG1000.

Also acoustic stealth...DDG1000 will supposedly be as quiet as a 688I. Pretty impressive for a surface ship. Combined with the low visual signature, it should be a much more difficult target for 3rd World littoral subs.

3)Operating Costs
A newer ship design incorporating modern shipbuilding techniques should reduce operational costs. Older DDGs use a LOT of money in repairs. It costs thousands, even millions to keep some of these older ships running. SPY is cranky, and the constant repairs also have a human cost in terms of manhours for ship's force. The cost to manhours can hit more than just quality of life/morale as well...while maintenance proficiency is important, if most of the crew's time is dedicated to fixing things that are broken, training will be neglected.

Manning is another issue. DDG1000 promises to be built to run with much reduced manpower. Hopefully, this is true, as DDGs which were designed to be operating with ~320 sailors are currently running with ~250 due to Navywide manpower cuts.

Quote Reply

USN-MID 4/27/2008 7:14:40 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.

Mk41 VLS can technically fire 1rd/second, however, that is only for the launcher itself. Due to missile deconflicting rules, you can't even get close to that rate of fire in practice.

DDX also has TWO AGS mounts, meaning you actually get a combined 20rds/min, which equates to 1 rd/3 secs. That's pretty damn destructive.

Herald was spot on. Saturation with cheaper simpler projectiles is better.

As for stopping the rounds, you're only looking at hard kill. High tech Gucci toys can offer more capability, but increased complexity means multiple points of failures. Missiles are also subject to soft kills(EW). A ballistic trajectory means the only way to stop it is to get a hard kill as there's no system to "trick" once the weapons is enroute.

Cheaper rounds also means you can just blast the damn things off without a care in the world. A ship can also carry far more gun rounds than missiles.

Missiles are good when you need extraordinary range(like TLAM's 1000nm range) or the ability to kill a moving hard target over range(SS-N-19 Shipwreck's high speed and multiple guidance systems).

But whenever possible, simpler is better.

Quote Reply

B.Smitty 4/27/2008 8:06:01 AM

Herald was spot on. Saturation with cheaper simpler projectiles is better.

But will LRLAP really be any cheaper or simpler?

I would agree if we were talking about firing standard 155mm rounds, but LRLAP is a totally different animal. It has all the complexities of a gun AND a missile combined into one system.

Quote Reply

B.Smitty 4/27/2008 8:28:39 AM

LRLAP won't fly a ballistic trajectory, and AGS isn't slated to have an unguided projectile. LRLAP will be just as susceptible to soft kills as any other missile (since that's what it is).

Quote Reply

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