The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Tue Jul 08, 2025 6:00 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 118 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 5:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
I have thoroughly enjoyed theoretical rebuilds of previous classes to date, but now want to add one more.

As much as we have established it is a shame the Spruance class is no longer available for refit to a platform for NGFS, or any other update, sadly, they are all (but one) gone and will not be returning.

There is, however, a potential extant candidate for this mission – the Flight I Arleigh Burke. The 21 initial members of the class are approaching 20 years in commission, and plans are in hand for a two-phase modernization, one being HME upgrades and the second being the addition of an open architecture/electronics upgrade.

How about a third phase, adding NGFS to a platform which already has many derisible traits for inshore work: AEGIS already aboard, Low observability, steel construction (with the exception of the uptakes), and updated and supportable systems already within the Navy supply system.

My first idea is to add the MK 71 MCLWG and guns for small boat threats, update the stacks to incorporate the IR suppression techniques of the later members of the class. I am assuming ESM systems and Decoys are to be updated in the planned phase two.

I would get the space/weight through removal of Mount 51 and the forward VLS. The aft VLS should be modified to handle ESSM if not already done or planned.

For the ‘guns for small boats’ issue, either I would:

1. Remove the forward Mk 15 and build a deckhouse forward of the bridge to have a Mk 110 57mm superfiring mount 81 (using the same mass numbers from the Spruance class modification thread this should be possible), or

2. Add the Mk46 30mm Chain gun in two remote mounts, ideally fwd/aft (one on a step below the fwd Mk 15, one at the extreme aft of the missile deck, in a deckhouse similar to that used for LPD-17), but Port/Starboard if not possible.

In the case of adding the MK110, the aft MK 15 probably becomes RAM instead, with the Mk 110 adding its weight to close in missile defense.

I’m not advocating the massive rebuild that would be needed to add helo hangars to the ships, as that may ‘break the bank’ for the refit. At this time, the only ‘new’ (read: not already in the Navy system) system I am adding is Mk71.

Comments/Ideas?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 1:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
Here's a thought that Dave (navydavesof) and I have kicked around... Modern U.S. ships are not really designed for battle in several respects. In particular, and as it relates to the question of armament, remember that the Mk110 "turret" housing is not armored at all. My understanding is that it's just a fiberglass shell. I believe that the same goes for the Mk71. So, from a combat perspective (you are, after all, designing for NSFS and therefore well within small craft range), you're running a high risk of having your major guns put out of action by simple small arms fire to say nothing of an RPG. A burst of machine gun fire (heck, a moderately lucky rifle shot) could easily incapacitate a gun. The point I'm belaboring is that if you really want to design a ship that can stand in the near shore environment and fight, you may want to give serious consideration to the concept of redundancy: two, three, or four Mk110s would go a long way to ensuring that your stated mission can be carried out against opposition.

Now, I realize that there are people who believe that the Mk110 is some kind of infallible, one-shot, one-kill wonder weapon and if you happen to agree with that then a single Mk110 is all you need. On the other hand, if you believe that stopping a high speed, maneuvering small craft (to say nothing of 4 or 5 attacking simultaneously) is, inevitably, going to be harder than the manufacturer's claims would have you believe, then you've got to be prepared to take damage and one of the best ways to mitigate damage is through redundancy.

Of course, there's always good old fashioned mechanical failure, too, despite what the manufacturer would, again, claim. Have you ever seen a mechanical device that didn't suffer occasional failures?

If you want to get even deeper into designing for battle, we can discuss radar redundancy (those things are even more fragile than the guns) and clustering (an unlucky burst of shrapnel and you could lose most of your sensors).

I'd love to see someone, such as yourself, do what you're proposing but with a serious eye towards a battleworthy design. Consider a WWII Fletcher DD and their number of guns, redundancy of guns and directors, level of armor, etc. Those things were built to fight, take damage, and keep fighting. Today's destroyers are not serious warships; they're just missile platforms that the Navy apparently thinks will never take a hit.

Anyway, just food for thought since you asked.

Regards,
Bob


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 8:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3127
Carr is dead right. We have talked about this quite a bit, and as I was looking at one of the Flight 1s today, she was under going some maintenance, and she had her stack caps off, which looked awfully nice.

I would recommend (and plan to build this year....so you and I might have a build-off, Mr. Gui!!!) that the ship reflect much like you have suggested with the respect of the level and smooth stack caps, upgraded radars, Mk71 forward, no helo hanger, and the incorporation on a "medium" sized gun (57mm...76mm). May I suggest to maintain maximum firepower and flexibility that the 57mm going directly aft of the aft VLS centerline and move the AUX generator volcano exhaust off to the side like the Spruances and Ticonderogas had/have. Since the 57mm is not a wonder-weapon, there is really no reason to really buff up on them with mounts forward and aft. After all....it's only a 57mm gun.

I am going to incorporate a few other things into the design as well. I also have a NON-Aegis FlightI Burke completely designed out. I have also been considering a non Aegis Flight II(b) AAW ship equipped with a modern NTU package based on a stepped up Mk74 Tartar WDS with a helo hanger. Both of these ships are based on saving hundreds of millions of dollars per ship (Flight IB Burke $600 million savings and Flight IIB $550 million savings). While we are on the subject of Non Aegis Burkes, I also have a DDH designed out, and I am going to build it as soon as I can get my hands on my supplies again....HELLO HOLIDAYS!!!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 10:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
I completely agree with the design to fight concept, but my point was trying to get NGFS is a simple way, thus more likely to happen.

Note that my proposal was a way to use already existing hulls which happen to be coming up for MLU anyway. I think a review of my previous postings would put me squarely in the gun club/ship built to fight club just like the two of you.

I’ve never said the 57mm is a wonder weapon (clearly, we all believe the MK 71 is the wonder weapon…); however the Mk 71 will not provide defense against fast moving small boats close in - that is the primary reason I want it. I'd prefer some form of ballistic protection as well - but was trying to minimize the non-current Navy systems or alterations to those systems. The 57mm is a rapid fire weapon in the US system which can fill that needed role. Using an existing weapon removes the potential for bottlenecks or complaints from congress and the like.

I only went to sea on one DDG-51 (USS Benfold, DDG-65), so my familiarity with the Burke layout is not near what I know about the Spruance layout (Kinkaid, Kidd, Chancellorsville). If the generator can be moved, great – but I didn’t want major change to prevent the refit from taking place. I placed the Mk 110 forward because change was already going to happen forward with the removal of the VLS. Tear-out already done, a new one level deckhouse shouldn’t break the bank. Further, a mount forward matches the Mk 71 firing arc, meaning the weapon will be available along the same threat axis you are delivering NGFS.

How much depth would you gain in the generator space? Would it be sufficient for the weapon? If the target is to offset the SSTG, where does it end up? Is it now along the side of the ship where it is more likely to take an RPG itself from that side? How much separation is there between that heat being generated and the 57mm magazine? Do we have to be concerned with ejected 57mm casings potentially fouling the missile deck (seems much better controlled than Mk 45 or Mk 75 ejecta)? As always, one idea begets endless more questions. The SSTG position would certainly be a great position from a firing arc prospective.

The MK 46 alternative was another step toward minimizing changes – it only needs a relatively simple one level deckhouse. You could add it almost anywhere.

Tear out and installation is expensive and can make huge changes to the ships characteristics – ask Sailors who served aboard USS Fife about the list she gained with her refit.

A new build I would do differently than I proposed.

New build DDG-51s with the MCLWG was a design feature of the DDV 8 variant under consideration according to Freidman's U.S. Destroyers (pg 405), but that proposal had 64 cells forward with the gun, as well as a Helo Hangar. Many good variant ideas there.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 2:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
SumGui wrote:
For the ‘guns for small boats’ issue, either I would:

1. ... a Mk 110 57mm ... or
2. Add the Mk46 30mm Chain gun in two remote mounts...

OK, I get that you're trying to produce a relatively easy to achieve NSFS platform that would have some likelihood of actually being done by the Navy. Hence, minimal changes and standardized equipment already in the field. No problem with that.

However, consider that you'll be producing a NSFS vessel that can't successfully defend itself from, say, half a dozen small speedboats mounting nothing more than machine guns and RPGs. A single Mk110 (or two 30mm) will not be sufficient. Thus, you'll have a NSFS platform that is not survivable (in terms of mission kill, not sinking - speedboats aren't going to sink a destroyer but they will mission kill it). If so, why produce it? What's the difference between an existing Burke that isn't suited for NSFS and a purpose-modified one that's easy to mission kill?

I'm not trying to shoot down your idea - in fact, I like it. I'm just suggesting you consider the operating environment and threats that your design will face and be sure you can handle the threats long enough to carry out the mission. A Burke with one Mk110 and a few 0.50 cal MG's just can't defeat a mini-swarm of speedboats. I'm just trying to nudge your design to a more survivable version. I recognize the desire to make minimal changes but why make any changes if the result is not survivable in the intended environment?

Keep going with this! I support what you're doing.

Thanks,
Bob


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 3:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
I think we are in vehement agreement.

The strongest case for any Mk110 mount is the small boat threat, and that 57mm weapon should provide engagement earlier than boghammers with M2s and RPGs can engage. Clearly they would have to be detected early enough, and I’m hoping a containerized solution for RPVs would add their enhanced sensor range capability to this theoretical vessel if sent forward.

I would sacrifice some of the after VLS cells if it would buy me a second Mk 110 (for one forward, one aft) but I would not do it to add the only Mk110, or go below 48 total cells aboard.

Another position I considered for the Mk46 was abeam the Harpoon launchers, where there is currently a M2 mount on most (if not all) vessels. Backup to that position is the aft quarters of the missile deck, if no Mk110 is mounted aft (I’d move the SVTT a few feet forward, if needed).

While, even if in theory, you could get the Mk 71 aboard, add two Mk110 and the Mk46 at the beam, manning becomes an issue. With this many new systems, manning would grow. The best that could reasonably be hoped for is to break even through other modernization efficiencies, and the Navy is attempting to reduce manning wherever possible.

As the design changes grow, the likelihood of them being carried out decreases.

As far as damage to the vessel itself – the Burke design is currently the closest thing we have to an actual warship design (that is; get in, hit hard, take a hit, continue to fight), so while it may not be perfect, it is the best we have right now. Having seen how most of the vessel’s critical systems are buried within the ship, I think mission kill might be more difficult than you believe.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 4:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
SumGui wrote:
... I think mission kill might be more difficult than you believe.

Now that's interesting. I see a mission kill as being achieved by simple physical damage to the gun (Mk71 or Mk110) itself inside its unarmored shell (it's really just a weather shield). Damage to the train mechanism, hoist elements, barrel, local electronics, etc. from a spray of bullets seems quite likely to me. The thought of a mission kill involving internal ship's electronics never crossed my mind. A secondary form of mission kill could come from damage to the exposed radars. Those are very fragile devices. Picture a burst of MG fire hitting a SPQ-9B. I doubt it'd continue to operate. Maybe a second -9B located as far away as possible for redundancy?

I think you get my points. Now do with them what you will. I look forward to seeing what you come up with. Just don't make me come over there with a couple of 1/350 speedboats and sink your model!

Thanks,
Bob


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 4:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
Ah, our definitions of mission kill are not the same.

While your example will reduce the capability of the vessel to conduct a specific mission, mission ‘kill’ for me is elimination of the vessel as a combat asset, thus sending it out of the area.

For example; The Mk 71, if lost, would cause significant mission degradation of NGFS, but that does not mean other mission capabilities are degraded.

It would be rather difficult to specifically target one of these systems, as you first have to get close enough, then be accurate enough under fire (even the flare of the DDG-51 bow would make the angle to the Mk 71 from a skiff with a M2 hard, once you were finally close enough) – but the concern of swarming is perfectly legitimate.

Further, the vessel could still hit land targets with other systems, such as SLAM (if aboard) or Tomahawk. Even the Standard family has the ability to airburst over a target and inflict damage. The vessel could still operate as a forward station for helos/UAVs, conduct ASW and AAW, etc.

I am a fan of armoring the mounts, (for retrofit, armor vs. up to .50 AP should be sufficient and effective vs. shrapnel without putting massive stress on the existing mount and motors), however armoring most radar is not conducive to their sensitivity (granted, waveguides and such can be armored). The SPY-1 is in the deckhouse, so waveguides are as close to a non-issue as possible, however the antenna faces are exposed, and have to be. Luckily, losing a cell of a phased array radar degrades it, but it should not completely lose capability. Even were a face to take sufficient damage to render it inoperable, there is still 75% coverage from the other three faces (and beams can be steered to reduce that even further)


Also, backups of dissimilar types can and should be used – in your SPQ-9 example, loss of the radar would be a degradation, but then EO or the SPY-1 could stand in for targeting.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 5:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
SumGui wrote:
Ah, our definitions of mission kill are not the same.

No, I was considering only the NSFS mission since that is the purpose for producing the modifications. If the NSFS mission can be killed fairly easily then the ship is just another destroyer and the modifications wouldn't be worth doing.

Quote:
It would be rather difficult to specifically target one of these systems, as you first have to get close enough, then be accurate enough under fire (even the flare of the DDG-51 bow would make the angle to the Mk 71 from a skiff with a M2 hard, once you were finally close enough) – but the concern of swarming is perfectly legitimate.

Well, this is the crux of the matter. I think small speedboat swarming would be very effective and difficult to counter, to say nothing of swarming by small missile boats. If you feel that this is not a particularly dangerous scenario then you don't need the kinds of changes I'm suggesting. Of course, since it's never been done or tested realistically, who can say whether I'm overstating or understating the problem? So, make your best assessment and go with it. I won't argue further.

Quote:
Also, backups of dissimilar types can and should be used – in your SPQ-9 example, loss of the radar would be a degradation, but then EO or the SPY-1 could stand in for targeting.

Excellent. I wonder what the effectiveness of EO would be against a high speed, maneuvering target? I was not aware that SPY-1 could be effectively used against that type of target at extreme close range. Are you sure that Aegis can discriminate small surface targets at a ranges of a few hundred yards sufficiently well for gun targetting?

Interesting!

Thanks,
Bob


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 6:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
carr wrote:
No, I was considering only the NSFS mission since that is the purpose for producing the modifications. If the NSFS mission can be killed fairly easily then the ship is just another destroyer and the modifications wouldn't be worth doing.


Can’t agree here. To use argumentum ad absurdum, why do anything if someone may be able to stop you on occasion? That the gun MAY be lost in battle is not legitimate reason not to mount it.

I will agree with the general concept that you want to make mission success as likely as practicable and that if mission success is not reasonably sure within a reasonable risk, it should not be done. I don’t think that is the case here. The weapon would be an incredible asset, and a fiberglass gun house does not diminish that. Without armoring, it is still of much greater effectiveness in NGFS that existing non-armored mounts – and not by a small margin.

In fact one could argue that the added range improves the defenses of the mount and ship itself by placing the vessel farther from the targeted threat, increasing the potential area the enemy has to search and increasing the vessels reaction time through added distance.

The armored gun house would add functionality through potential durability, but I do not believe the lack of that armor makes it non effective, especially when compared to currently deployed weapons.

Quote:
It would be rather difficult to specifically target one of these systems, as you first have to get close enough, then be accurate enough under fire (even the flare of the DDG-51 bow would make the angle to the Mk 71 from a skiff with a M2 hard, once you were finally close enough) – but the concern of swarming is perfectly legitimate.

carr wrote:
Well, this is the crux of the matter. I think small speedboat swarming would be very effective and difficult to counter, to say nothing of swarming by small missile boats. If you feel that this is not a particularly dangerous scenario then you don't need the kinds of changes I'm suggesting. Of course, since it's never been done or tested realistically, who can say whether I'm overstating or understating the problem? So, make your best assessment and go with it. I won't argue further.


Not sure why I’m sensing acrimony here – I agree that the swarming small boats are a significant threat, and that your suggestion of armoring the mount would provide added benefit. Smaller groups I would expect to be dealt with by ship’s systems before they got close enough, but there is always that possibility of bleed-through.

Missile boats are a different issue – most big enough to mount significant anti-ship weaponry likewise become Big enough to be the Mk 71’s dinner…and AEGIS (SM-2 and ESSM) and CIWS (be it Mk110, Mk15, or RAM) is aboard to deal with the missiles themselves . The armoring of the gun houses will help prevent cheap-kill damage from airbursts of weapons from missile boats.

Maybe where we disagree is with the ‘fairly easily’ condition. I agree that the threat is real and significant, but I do not believe the theoretical effect could be achieved ‘fairly easily’. A swarm would require a reasonable effort on the part of the adversary, that build up may be detected, then it has to be coordinated, then it has to travel to the target area, etc..

I’m of the opinion that there are many opportunities to mitigate the threat at many levels, but still agree passive armor should be included as one of those mitigations.

So, simply, we both agree the threat is significant enough to add passive armor.

carr wrote:
Excellent. I wonder what the effectiveness of EO would be against a high speed, maneuvering target? I was not aware that SPY-1 could be effectively used against that type of target at extreme close range. Are you sure that Aegis can discriminate small surface targets at a ranges of a few hundred yards sufficiently well for gun targetting?


As SPY-1 loses effectiveness on a surface target with closure of that target, the effectiveness of the EO is increasing at the same time. Keep in mind – I did say loss of the SPQ-9 would be degradation – certainly surface fire will be more effective with SPQ-9 than without, but loss of the SPQ-9 does not mean a total end to the ability to track and take surface targets under fire.

Truth is, we need not be sure that SPY-1 can discriminate small surface targets at a few hundred tards - SPQ-9 will do that. We only need to be sure we have some alternative if we lose SPQ-9. Clearly, the SPQ-9 option will always be better, if it isn't why mount it?

Love the feedback.
At this point, I’m leaning toward the forward Mk110 with two Mk46 on the quarters of the missile deck – with all guns in armored houses.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 6:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
Quote:
Love the feedback.
At this point, I’m leaning toward the forward Mk110 with two Mk46 on the quarters of the missile deck – with all guns in armored houses.

We disagree only on the level of danger the swarm poses. I see it as likely to succeed and you see it as serious though likely to fail. Fair enough. At this point, I can offer nothing further so, on with the "build" (this is a theoretical build, I take it?)! :thumbs_up_1:

Are you going to produce a drawing?

Do you envision the armored housings as retaining their stealth shape?

The Mk110 housing is, relative to the size of the gun, enormous. I have pictures of the inside of the housing and the roominess is staggering. You might consider downsizing the housing if you're going to armor it. You could save a lot of weight.

Regards,
Bob


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
If I were any good with shipbucket, I'd probably start that way, but i've never had time to play with it.

Hope to have some free time to put some of this together over the holidays. If not, I did just put my retirement papers in...

In the 'real world' I'd find a way to save space, thus weight, on the Mk110, but it is more likely that I will use an existing gunhouse for ease of construction, and because that is probably the easiest to be recognized my most observers.

Currently, outside of my 1250 collection, the only DDG-51 I have is 1/700, so that is the most likely scale. As such, changes to small caliber deckhouses may not be all that noticable. As it is, I'll need to find or build Mk71, Mk110, and Mk46 gunhouses, so who knows.

I've always been a proponent of defense against small boats, especially inshore - you can find that on older posts in the Spru thread.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 8:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3127
Mr Gui!

I would like you to consider a few things for the Mk110. Since Harpoons are very nearly plug-and-play systems, why not move the Harpoons to between the stacks like was originally designed (you can visualize this as Harpoons on the Nulka stand between the stacks instead of Nulka) and place the Mk110 where the Harpoons used to be. You would just need to build a platform tall enough to accommodate the 110's ready service magazine so the only deck penetration is that of the main magazine. The Flight I Burkes have Phalanx pretty high up back aft, and that gives you a whole lot of clearance for the Mk110. Even with the considerable size of the Mk110's gun shield and the stand it would be on, this would theoretically have little impact on the Phalanx's firing arc.

While this would consume a little of the air intake plenum's internal volume, the Mk46 30mm guns could go on the deck of the O-2 level just behind aft SPY panels. The air intake volume consumed by the mount can be re-routed from somewhere else, perhaps more intakes on the side of the forward stack.

This way, you can add these weapons to the existing package instead of having to trade. The hulls are good enough to take the little extra weight involved in these systems. The Mk71 is the only one that would involve significant extra space and weight, but while it would be cramped forward...that's it...it's only cramped, not impossible. If someone wants to see "cramped" that still works brilliantly, walk inside of a Mk41 VLS. That's cramped. Fat people are not allowed.

So, realilistically, if Mk41 works as cramped as it is, a lot more is possible than people think.

What do you think about them apples?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Last edited by navydavesof on Wed Dec 08, 2010 10:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 8:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3127
Also, what is the advantage to having the Mk46 30mm gun instead of having the Mk38 Mod2 30mm variant?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
navydavesof wrote:
I would like you to consider a few things for the Mk110. Since Harpoons are very nearly plug-and-play systems, why not move the Harpoons to between the stacks like was originally designed (you can visualize this as Harpoons on the Nulka stand between the stacks instead of Nulka) and place the Mk110 where the Harpoons used to be. You would just need to build a platform tall enough to accommodate the 110's ready service magazine so the only deck penetration is that of the main magazine. The Flight I Burkes have Phalanx pretty high up back aft, and that gives you a whole lot of clearance for the Mk110. Even with the considerable size of the Mk110's gun shield and the stand it would be on, this would theoretically have little impact on the Phalanx's firing arc.


I would love to have the position taken by the Harpoons, but where does the sliding padeye for UNREP go instead? Perhaps aft on the missile deck. Forward of the bridge in some of the space previously occupied by VLS may be too active in anything but a calm sea (besides, I’d like to have a forward and an aft Mk110…)

Height is the concern. Hmm…

navydavesof wrote:
While this would consume a little of the air intake plenum's internal volume, the Mk46 30mm guns could go on the deck of the O-2 level just behind aft SPY panels. The air intake volume consumed by the mount can be re-routed from somewhere else, perhaps more intakes on the side of the forward stack.


That air intake problem may be solved (in whatever form) at the same time the stacks are being updated anyway…I like it.

navydavesof wrote:
Also, what is the advantage to having the Mk46 30mm gun instead of having the Mk38 Mod2 30mm variant??


I latched onto the Mk46 for its larger caliber, low profile gunhouse, and active production line, but the Mk38Mod2 would work for the task as well. In spite of the fact that I loved operating the M242 on the PCs, a remote mount was needed. Either should work, and I get the idea that the Mk38 will end up being lighter and cheaper. I do prefer the on-mount EO of the Mk38mod2. What are the ready magazine capacities for each mount? I am under the impression that the Mk46 has more, but I have no data to back that up.

Further, now I have found precedent for the Mk38mod2 on a Burke, allow me to boot off the Mk46 in favor if the Mk38mod2, as it meets my target of realistic possibility of the fit actually occurring much better:

http://www.navytimes.com/xml/news/2009/ ... un_800.JPG

Mk46, you have been voted off the island. Cost? It would have been easier to add ballistic protection to the Mk46, and I may be giving up ready rounds.

And please stop addressing me as “Mr.” it implies that I am a Commissioned Officer, and that is a demotion that doesn’t sit well with me…heh, heh.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3127
Oh yeah.
Image
What a beautiful sight.

I see you keep illuding to an elimination in cells forward. Is that to accommodate a Mk110 forward? The Mk71 could go forward with the VLS in place.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 7:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
Weight and space.

If you add the Mk 71 in place of the Mk 45, you have incread the weight forward by 125 klbs.

32 cells, loaded 24 SM-2 and 8 Tomahawk removed would free 158 klbs - leaving 32 lkbs for the incresed ammo load, the Mk 110 (17 klbs) and its deckhouse (? klbs).

While It may be possible to mount Mk 71, once you have done that, what is the ammunition capacity?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:58 pm
Posts: 1550
Location: Houston, Texas
The Arleigh Burke class is well protected having extensive subdivision and fire suppression equipment. The Aegis combat system is tasked with protecting the ship from air/missile attack. The AN/SPY-1D(V) radars have had several updates to improved low altitude anti-missile capability. The missiles available to the system can employ is growing. The RIM-66M-5, and RIM-156A are being augmented with the RIM-162A Evolved Sea Sparrow and the RIM-174A SM-6 ERAM.

The Arleigh Burke class DDG is much bigger than the WW2 era Gearing class DD. The Arleigh Burke is 8,850 Long tons full load displacement while the Gearing was 3,690 long tons full load displacement. The ability of a warship to deal with battle damage is directly proportional to its displacement. The Gearing isn’t capable of surviving a hit from a 3M80 “Moskit” [NATO reporting name: SS-N-22 Sunburn] anti-ship missile the Arleigh Burke can. The 5 5”/38 guns on the Fletcher were less capable than 2 127mm/54 Mk42 guns. The 5”/38 has never been able to shoot down a drone moving at high subsonic speeds while the Mk42 has.

The modernization of the flight I and II Arleigh Burkes include upgrading the 127mm/54 Mk45 mod2 gun to the 127mm/62 Mk45 mod4. While the ERGM has been canceled the new gun mount is more reliable and improves the accuracy of existing 127mm rounds. The Phalanx gun is being updated to the block 1B standard which gives it a capability against fast surface vessels, and light aircraft. Stabilized 25mm gun mounts are also being fit. The Evolved Sea Sparrow is being fit to the Mk41 launchers. Eight cells per launcher will be fit to accept the quad pack of ESSM. This means that 16 cells can hold up to 64 ESSM. The ESSM is just as agile as RAM and is longer ranged. Much of the ships steam powered equipment is being replaced by electric powered equipment and electric power generation is being upgraded. Low observable features are being added to reduce the radar signature of the ships.

Standard missiles do have an anti-surface capability which was proven in Operation Praying mantis. It has a faster reaction time than the Harpoon missile. While it’s not as powerful as the Harpoon it can result in a “soft kill” of an enemy vessel which makes it a sitting duck.

The Arleigh Burke class was designed as an anti-aircraft defense vessel. The Flight IIA improved the ASW and ASuW capabilities. The ASuW mission is still primarily a mission for USN/USMC aircraft. The USN’s version of the Maverick missile the AGM-65F/J is infrared guided and has a good anti-ship capability. The AGM-123 Skipper (A rocket boosted GBU-16 Paveway II.

_________________
╔═════╗
Seasick
╚═════╝


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3127
SumGui wrote:
Weight and space.

If you add the Mk 71 in place of the Mk 45, you have incread the weight forward by 125 klbs.

32 cells, loaded 24 SM-2 and 8 Tomahawk removed would free 158 klbs - leaving 32 lkbs for the incresed ammo load, the Mk 110 (17 klbs) and its deckhouse (? klbs).
While It may be possible to mount Mk 71, once you have done that, what is the ammunition capacity?


This is only conjecture, but from what NAVSEA said was that from the internal volume necessary, the smallest of the magazines could be fitted: 336 magazine 75 in loader drum so 411 rounds total.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 11:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3127
SumGui wrote:
New build DDG-51s with the MCLWG was a design feature of the DDV 8 variant under consideration according to Freidman's U.S. Destroyers (pg 405), but that proposal had 64 cells forward with the gun, as well as a Helo Hangar. Many good variant ideas there.

If I remember correctly, the DDV8 was Aegis equipped with NO terminal SPG-62 illuminators aft with 2 RAM launchers in their places instead, maybe one forward, a Mk71 MCLWG, and 61-cell VLS forward and was the 466' hull version? Aft would have been a two helo Spruance-class style hanger with no VLS.

This reminds me of one of my upcoming model projects and proposals to the CNO. This is similar to my DDH with the exception of a few things. My DDH (an upcoming thread) is non-Aegis, has the Mk71 Mod2 MCLWG and a 64-cell VLS forward. There is no VLS aft, and a modified hanger to accommodate 4 SH-60s. The hull would take advantage of the modified DDG-51 hull length project...but that's for another thread.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 118 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group