The Ship Model Forum

the POLAR flyer is 1999/2000 based on the links where I find it.

The bad weather is here, so it is modeling time - but I'm having 'too many idead-itis' and I'm spending more time bashing ideas and researching than building any ONE of those ideas...

The issue I have with this build is parts - I'll need to fabricate guns, something I haven't done yet - and in 1/700 that is a challenge... otherwise I have two volunteer kits - a flight I for the basis and a later IIA for the stacks.

I probably need to brush up on basic skills, even though externally this build does not change much.

What would be a feasible way to install a hanger on a flight1 Burke?

Anyone have design concepts for that? That alone would be an improvement for the flight ones.

_________________
So many models... So little time...

Yeah, pull the after VLS and basically neuter the ship. Might as well yank AEGIS if you do that and turn them into normal DDs.

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984

The design concept is the actual Flight IIAs that they built. The Flight IIAs are literally Flight I/IIs with hangars jammed on either side of the aft VLS and 5' being added to the stern. This lead to the VLS being raised 1 deck and the aft SPY radars being raised by about 1 deck.

If you wanted to back fit a Flight I with hangars, you would need to literally make it a Flight IIA. I think it could be done if you really, really wanted to, but it's totally unnecessary. However...in order to do that, you would only need to remove the aft VLS and start at the flight deck and dig back into the hull approximately 20' toward the aft stack. This is about to the middle of the VLS arrangement. Then you would build the interior of the hangars and raise the frame for the aft VLS up by 1 deck. Add the roof onto the hangar and reinstall the VLS. The aft SPY panels would have to be removed and their housings built higher. Then reinstall the arrays. Add 5' of hull to the stern, and there you have it. A Flight I with hangars (now a Flight IIA).

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Okay.... scratch the Hanger

I kinda thought that's the only real drawback of them compared to the IIa's.

_________________
So many models... So little time...

You're absolutely right. It's good to keep in mind that the Burkes are all around limited ships. They were designed as "compromise" ships, because the CGs were pretty expensive. The Burkes' performance shows their limited capability. It's just something that happens when you try to make a ship do everything...and not cost a s#!t-ton.

The situation is especially true in the ASW realm. The Flight Is have both bow mounted sonar and a towed sonar. This combination gave them a pretty good capability to track submarines at various depths and at long ranges. However, they had no helicopters to prosecute subs, so they could not attack those subs at longer ranges. So they were rather limited to ship launched weapons (VLASROC and torpedo tubes). When the Flight IIAs were built, they got hangars, but to save cost, they did not get a towed sonar, so they could not detect submarines at various depths or long ranges. The towed sonar is the really, really effective one that is a key help narrowing where a submarine is. So even though the Flight IIAs had hangars, it was far more difficult for them to hunt submarines than the Flight Is.

It was a trade off that kept the Burkes very limited in the ASW role. This has caused a huge gap in ASW capability. Only now, 2012-2013, that the Flight IIAs are being retrofitted with the TACTAS towed sonar can they be truly effective ASW ships. It is my understanding that those being backfit with the TACTAS are doing much better in the ASW area. But that also means that they're just now catching up to the Spruance-class in ASW capability...and we have fewer ships with more missions...

...maybe we should have kept the Spruances mothballed so they would be available for times like these...like we were supposed to (silly CNO Roughead).

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Chainguns.......

replace the forward CIWS with an remote controled Bushmaster and place several more manned ones on each side.

And a minigun on each bridge wing for good measure. Now bring on those little speedboats

_________________
So many models... So little time...

Why are manually aimed miniguns and Bushmasters better than radar and IR controlled 20mm gatling guns (CIWS)?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I do not really see much advantage either.

I wonder if a GAU-12/U 25mm gatling gun could be mounted in place of a 20mm canon on CIWS. I am assuming that the search and track radars would be removed since this would ostensibly be an anti-swarm weapon!

Not better, but for an anti-swarm set up wouldn't numerous guns (chain guns for example) all around the hull be better than a pair of CIWS? I'm assuming that the Dept of Navy wouldn't approve the cost of lets say 4 CIWS Block 1Bs on one Destroyer?

I just like multiple guns, and adding those major caliber machine guns and live sailors with mk1 eyeballs gotta be a lot cheaper. But sure, if I could have it that way 4+ CIWS on one Burke Class would be a plus IMO.

_________________
So many models... So little time...

I think the better question would be, why manned Bushmasters at all when you can use the remote ones for all of them?

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

I understand what you mean. You have to keep in mind that the Mk38 Mod1s are all being replaced because you can't successfully engage surface borne targets at a useful range. Their engagement zone is so close that they will be hitting you with machine guns. The Mod2s offer tracking and gyro stabilization. That opens up their engagement range a lot.

Having been on these ships, what I think would be better than what we have is keeping the Mk38 guns where they are, adding a second Mk38 Mod2 just forward of the super structure and/or adding 2 GAU-19 .50caliber Gatling guns to each side, one on each of the bridge wings and one on the O1 Level on either side of the aft stack. The elevation would offer the gunner a good enough elevated position to best accurately engage targets up to 1000 yards. Anything closer would have no chance. But a good sight would be essential.

The best quick and easy solution is to add a pair of USMC Javiline anti-tank missile teams to the ship's company with 30 or more missiles per ship. The best long term solution is to add a RAM-like box launcher with 20+ Hellfire laser guided anti-tank missiles and a laser designator on the mast.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Dave,

Great discussion points.

I think that there is no best single weapon for anti-swarm, but a mix of missile, and cannon, and energy weapons (non lethal and lethal). I do wonder about the .50 cal and javelin though. I think the .50 caliber weapon is unlikely to be effective against anything other than jet ski's and unarmored targets. 20/25mm seems to be the smallest size weapon acceptable. Javelin is also about $70,000 a pop: certainly cheap if it saves American lives, but then again, javelin was designed as an anti-armor weapon and some of its effectiveness depends upon behind the armor effect (using the armor itself as fragements to richocet inside an small metal crew compartment of a tank). By comparison, the 57mm AHEAD round has been reported to cost $1,000 each - figure 10-12 rounds per engagement.

I think that cannon ammunition needs to be blast, fragmentation (AHEAD), and Armor Piercing effect. The ability to switch types is great in theory, but a real engagement may see the enemy present multiple targets types at the same time. Therefore, a 35mm, 57 or 76mm gun ought to be "candy stripped" with HE, AHEAD, and AP ammunition mixed in the feed. This would give good effect against jet skis, and open topped boats, as well as effect against larger patrol craft without complicating the operator's decision loop. In the the odd case with some Jihadi high on khat decides to armor his cockpit and engine there will be no suprises.

I wonder if the 76mm might ultimately prove to be the most efficient of the cannon choices. The weapon is able to track fast moving/manuevering targets, it has the ability to stop or destroy a fairly large boat with a single shot, it is rapid firing, and it would be very difficult to armor against a 3" AP round. A 76mm version of the AHEAD round could incorporate several different sized submunitions: e.g. a larger AP round as well as many smaller fragments.

I still worry that a cunning enemy, and some of them are quite intelligent, will assemble a force that is ultimately effective: the real issue being U.S. rules of engagement, more than any other factor.

..

Hello Bob - more excellent points and discussion!

I agree with your observation and suggest that laser target designation may be even more useful than radar.

Also, the benefit of a gattling gun is that rounds can be walked on to the target quite nicely.


Iranian Boghammers in the “Tanker War” typically carried B40 rockets, 14.5mm machine guns, 23mm cannon, as well as other weapons. Immediate sinking is not a real issue - killing/incapacitating crews is.


This is not a new problem. Just before “Ernest Will” convoy escort missions in the ‘80s, the Army and Navy conducted joint exercises: Army TF 160th SOAR little birds conducting live fire runs against remote controlled speed boats. A year or so later, when the Iranians started mining the Persian Gulf, the 160th SOAR was flown to the gulf, embarked on USN warships and ultimately hammered the Iranian “casual” mine layer: Iran Ajr. The weapons on the AH-6s were primarily 2.75” rockets with HE and flechettes, 7.62mm mini-guns and .50 cal. The Iran Ajr was indeed hammered.

Latter, Iranian Boghammers were serviced effectively with Mk-20 Rockeye cluster bombs from USN A-6/A-7s, and 20mm cannons from USMC AH-1s. Rockeye shaped charge sub-munitions will punch trough over 7” of steel: armoring against a weapon like that would be tough. Even sub-munitions that “miss” the target, will still create tremendous blast effects in the impact area that would kill exposed personnel

Another solution could be to resort to area fire blast/fragmentation weapons launched from ships. SumGui suggested a 120mm mortar like AMOS in another thread. There are issues, but that could work in certain scenarios, with the benefit that “fire missions” could be pre-plotted on relative patterns around the ship. If the bad guys launch the attack from a group of civilian fish boats or pleasure craft, an area effect weapon could slaughter a lot of innocent people.

in reference to activities in the Arabian Gulf, I own this book and do recommend it:
http://www.insidethedangerzone.com/

One of the traits I liked about the AMOS solution was that the warhead is delivered from above - possibly maximizing damage to a small boat target. Of course, guidance and rate of fire may be issues when trying to contact a small boat target maneuvering at 40+ knots.

I'm also a fan of the OTO Melara 76mm SR for this application....

I have to say that an anti-tank missile will at the very least disable an attacking boat. It will certainly kill everyone aboard.

The Javelin has been so good for several years that once it locks onto an IR signature, it won't lose that signature and go after a decoy. IR signatures are very easy to pick up on the seas; in fact they are actually better on the seas than on the land. The seas offer a uniformly cool base for the craft to stand out against.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j93zvCL8Sw

Once that target lock is made, the Javelin will almost always hit the target. Like I said, USMC Javelin teams on board the ships are quick counter measures to a suspected swarm attack. If they're on point, which the Marines are, believe they would be very effective.

While these are stationary targets in both test and combat, once it locks on, it has the target.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6_JpPvW ... ults_video

Laser designated weapons are a one-shot-at-a-time weapon. I think they would be very effective, but you have to finish with one target before you shift to the next, so it can be a slow process.

My point about the Javelin is that it has been combat proven for the last 10 years, and since it is a fire and forget weapon, it can be shifted from target to target quickly, even if they miss.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

This really is getting interesting I wonder if the Sea Ram can be used against surface ships like a CIWS IIB?

Well still no Helo hanger but how about if the Burke F1 carried a pair of Sea Cobras armed with Hellfire's or Mavericks?

I'm not familiar with the Sea Rams' capabilities but I would almost think that it would be perfect for taking out fast-moving boats, its missles are derived from Sidewinder AAMs right?

_________________
So many models... So little time...

Surface ships, not really. It's a tiny little missile. In principal, small craft like suicide boats, yes. The RAM was married with the Block 1B system to give it autonomy instead of having to be slaved to another sensor somewhere else on the ship. In theory it would be great against small craft...but you're still only talking about 11 missiles, and reloading it is a b!tch and a half. Also, you're now shooting your close in anti-missile missiles at boats. You will need those when the anti-ship missiles penetrate your main SM-2 layer.

With no hangar, no. Only 1 helicopter can fit on the back of a Burke, and you can't store it back there anyway. The sea spray will cause so much corrosion they would be eaten up pretty quickly. Also, you don't have anywhere to store Mavericks. They have a few Hellfires for if someone else's helo needs a very few, but the Burkes very, very, very, very limited magazine space. They can't even carry that many torpedoes much less missiles for helicopters. If you want to have helos embarked on something as small as a Burke, you need a hangar.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Javelin is appealing, but the concern for me would be the tandem heat warhead (HE might be a better fit in this case) and the impact force detonator.

Javelin does have a top attack profile - but the range of only 2000m is a concern.


As far as housing a Helo goes, I have been trying to ghost out a potential location for a retractable hangar.