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: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13   NEXT
stinger       3/17/2008 11:42:30 PM
I think you could make a burke using the same spec and have 1 with a 155mm instead of the 127mm and package it with more TLAMS  then SM, and keep the others on a more traditional air defense role.
Quote    Reply

dwightlooi       3/19/2008 6:29:51 AM
We'll have 62~65 Burkes by the time the Zumwalt enters service. Isn't that enough? I mean, yes, we need more hulls, but do we need more Burkes?

Cancelling the Zumwalt terminates the next step forward in US warship evolution. It also stems the path to a potential CGX to replace the aging Ticonderogas.

Really, the 155 is just an excusive to build the DDG-1000 and have the USN cheer the project on. The DDG-1000 is not really about the 155. It is about the turbo-electric drive, IPS, the tumblehome hull form, warship LO, the SPY-3, the VSR, the all planar array antenna suite, the Mk57 PVLS and the new integrated undersea warfare system. It was also to be about a few new technologies which didn't make it such as the Permanent Magnet Motors. The DDG-1000 is not about the 7 Zumwalt hulls. It's about what's next. Doing away with the DDG-1000 will be like doing away with the F-22 and F-35, and building more upgraded F-15s, F-16s and F-18s because we'll get more airframes during the possible cash crunch of the next couple of years. The problem is that ten years from now we'll be 20 years behind and playing catch up.

Quote    Reply

kensohaski       3/19/2008 8:35:13 AM
The first rule of government contracts:
Why build one when you can build two at twice the price?
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty       3/19/2008 8:36:59 AM
Ronald O'Rourke recently gave testimony to Congress about future USN shipbuilding.  It's a good read, I recommend it.  In it he examined options for replacing the DDG-1000 with Burkes or CG(X)s. 

He discussed adding AGS to the Burke - it could likely be done, at the expense of the Mk45 and forward VLS cells, but would only carry 120rnds.  To me, this seems like a waste. 

He also included an appendix with a comparison of the Burke and Zumwalt designs.

Also, when discussing buying one option or another, we need to take into account total life-cycle costs, not just purchase prices.  The Zumwalt has a number of features which should reduce overall life-cycle costs, including needing half as many crew as a Burke. 

If we can buy 5 DDG-1000s for 8 Burkes, then i say go for the Zumwalts.  They will allow us to mature many of the new technologies mentioned by dwightlooi.

But if it's 5 for 12, then buying more than the initial 2 Zumwalts seems untenable.

Quote    Reply

BLUIE006       3/19/2008 8:58:36 AM
If you want more hulls build smaller ones...
Somethng about 6000-8000 tons ( not 14000).. with the same tech..
DDG-1000 - Is for naval gunfire, to replace the battleships , and as stated to mature tech....
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty       3/19/2008 9:27:55 AM
DDG-1000 is not just for naval gunfire.  It is just as much a multi-mission combatant as a Burke.  It does have a greater emphasis on naval gunfire, but that is not it's only mission. 

Quote    Reply

doggtag       3/19/2008 10:34:08 AM

Ronald O'Rourke recently gave testimony to Congress about future USN shipbuilding.  It's a good read, I recommend it.  In it he examined options for replacing the DDG-1000 with Burkes or CG(X)s. 

He discussed adding AGS to the Burke - it could likely be done, at the expense of the Mk45 and forward VLS cells, but would only carry 120rnds.  To me, this seems like a waste. 

Only 120 rounds?
For the volume that the Mk45 Mod 4 occupies, its magazine and hoists, and other associated equipment,
plus the whole volume taken up by the VLS array,
120 rounds for a single AGS mounting sounds like a very poorly-designed trade off.
Surely someone can do better than that.
Even if fully encased ammunition (will the AGS use that, or separate loading projectiles and charges?),
the Swedes even managed a very capable system in their Bandkanone 155mm SP gun, which utilized rather large "clips" containing 14 complete rounds (or was it 16?), mounted on a hull a tad smaller than most MBTs (no more than 12 feet wide, maybe 24 feet long give or take).
And someone comes up with a design to be dropped into a Burke hull in place of both the Mk45 and the the VLS, yet with only 120 rounds?
Sounds like somebody was told, "Piece some AGS parts together, but don't go overboard in magazine capacity, because we'd rather have the DDG1000 with 2 guns and large magazines, rather than a Burke with 1 gun. So for arguments' sake, keep the magazine design small, m'kay?"
Aside from the fact its construction wasn't the most seawater-friendly,
the PzH2000's turret, in the MONARC installation trialled onboard the German frigate (read: smaller than a Burke hull), had the potential of at least keeping close to the PzH2000's 60 round capacity (most in the turret, but the hull storage could've been incorporated into the ship, I would think).
And the best we can do in a much-larger Burke hull (helluva lot larger than a PzH2000 chassis) is only 120 rounds?
Shucks, that German AGM 155/52 system, utilizing the PzH2000's gun mounted in an automated turret on an MLRS chassis, that thing had access to 30 rounds.
Any reason we can't start from there and work forward?
(navalized construction to reduce seawater sensitivity, heavier structure to allow higher rate of sustained fire, etc)
An automated 155mm 55-cal turret with only 120 rounds,
in place of an automated 127mm 62-cal turret with, what, at least 200 rounds?,
plus the complete VLS array?
Yeah, that was a well-thought-out design.
Somebody's being deceived on that suggestion.
And don't tell me it's a recoil issue: if a Forrest Sherman (USS Hull, wasn't it?)  class destroyer can fire an 8-inch/L55 turret (Mk71 Major Caliber Lightweight Gun, with a 75-round standard magazine capacity with the ability of being backed up by reloads outside the mounting), then we're being conned if someone's trying to put over the idea that a Burke can't handle a 155 with a larger capacity magazine.
( ht*p:// )
No, I'm not suggesting another "203mm vs 155mm" debate,
but only 120 rounds for a Burke-mounted AGS?
That's bullsh*t, but certainly does make the case for using (needing, or wanting?) the DDG1000 as the fire support ship.
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty       3/19/2008 10:45:47 AM
Comparing naval conversions of land-based 155mm guns to AGS is apples-to-oranges.  For one, AGS will exclusively use LRLAP - a 7+ foot long, 260lb projectile.  Land-based 155mm projectiles are less than half that size ( ~2 feet, ~100lbs). 

Plus, AGS is a LARGE turret.  A Mk45 MOD 4 with hoist is around 24 tonnes.  AGS is over 87 tonnes. 

Quote    Reply

doggtag    That 87 tonnes...   3/19/2008 12:48:47 PM
; )
Yeah, I do understand the whole LRLAP argument,
but this BAE offering suggests "up to 750 rounds".
Now, is that "87 tonnes" you mention just for the gun mount itself (including hoists, feeders, servos, etc),
or does it include some of the ready ammo also?
What I'm arguing is, I'm not suggesting we use the full DDG1000 AGS set up, all 87 tonnes and all (with a full DDG1000-sized ammo magazine of 750 rounds),
but still, only 120 rounds in a Burke mounting?
What's the full-up weight of a complete Mk45 5"/L62 (64?) mounting,
and what are its volume requirements per installation,
as compared to both the 8/L55" Mk 71 and the 155/L55 (60?) AGS?
Does the AGS need all that much more volume to absorb the extra weight of a heavier, over-engineered system?
Or was it built big like that,
with the later intention of being able to use the same internal space for the hoped-for rail gun?
Allocating that much volume now with the complete AGS installation does assure then that there's plenty of volume for the railgun later, in whatever guise. But obviously, a Burke's generating capacity can't hold a candle to what the DDG1000 is supposed to be able to generate.
But then again, we're not on here proposing railgun armament for this fire support Burke,
but then again also, as the technology matures and power efficiencies improve, it should only be expected that at some future point a smaller-caliber, but still lethal, railgun turret will be installed onto the Burke hulls that are still fleet-capable at that day and age.
Is the DDG1000's hull vertically that much deeper, in that it can hold 750 rounds (is that per gun, or for both AGS?),
yet the Burke can only fit 120 for one gun?
How many VLS cells on the foredeck of a Burke?
Surely that alone weighs far more, loaded, than 87 tonnes.
So why must we lose both the Mk45 and the VLS, just to fit one AGS, and with a considerably-reduced ammo capacity?
At a future increment, is there any reason Burkes couldn't adopt a peripheral VLS (minimally, ESSM), even if not as fullsize as the DDG1000's Mk57?
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       3/19/2008 1:32:16 PM

I guess it is possible to develop a shore-bombardment missile based on ESSM. It should have the range of 8" guns on Des Moines class and carries the same amount of HE. Any ship that equips with Mk.41 can have 4 in each cell and fire them at 1 second interval. The missile can be configured so that it flies designated trajectory by GPS/INS as well as data link to the ship. Multiple-missile barrage can be carried out at different trajectories and still arrive the target simultaneously. An Arleigh Burke can carry nearly 400 of these, though 100 to 200 is more practical number.

However, I don't see why this kind of weapon will be developed due to changing tactical environment. There will be no Normandy-style landing in the future, and if there will be, this kind of  weapons and other solutions will be put on the table.
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13   NEXT