The Ship Model Forum

Hi guys,

First, I would like to thank all of you guys to this point. The other posts I have made have concerning the Iowa-class battleships, the modernized Spruance-class DDs turning them into DDGs, and a few other things. I would like to thank Captain Potter, Charles Landrum, Carr, SumGui, Seasick, etc. All of you guys have provided a lot of useful input both pro and cons (seasick) toward my various conceptions. The next project will be two ships. Both of these ships will be actual proposals to the Navy for future ship procurement. Like I said with my other suggestions before, I already have an accurate idea of what I want but I want to hear, however, what you might have in mind about the following can go a long way:

Flight III Arleigh Burke (CG-74)
And
Reduced Cost Arleigh Burke Flight IA (DDG-118)

Both of these designs will be suggestions made directly to the CNO (Admireal Gary Roughead) for consideration for future procurement.

So, as I have done before, the mission statements are as follows:

Flight III:
The first 5 Ticonderoga-class CGs have been decommissioned (in addition to the sacrifice of the entire Spruance-class destroyer (DD)to favor funding toward DDG-1000) and have to be replaced as soon as possible. The replacements have to accomplish the same mission requirements as the Ticos:
-AAW
-ASW
-AWuW (massive numbers of Harpoons?)
-NSFS
-Flag facilities
…and the following…
-Survivability against moderate missile threats, suicide bombers both small boat and surface explosions such as home grown terrorists like Maj. Kassan, mine strikes, and a reasonable chance to survive a torpedo attack.
-Layered CIWS (phalanx, RAM, and ESSM)
-UAV support and maintenance


Arleigh Burke Light:
-AAW system that is really good but not Aegis. Aegis costs too much, no question, so we need a cheaper version that does everything but the highest end features of Aegis.
-CIWS (phalanx and RAM)
-UAV/RPV storage and maintenance facilities

Concerning "protection" above, let's begin to incorporate various additions of armor again. I seem to understand that we went away from armor because we were concerned about having nuclear exchances at sea, and the only to survive a nuclear exchange at sea is to be in a battleship. Well, we can't build a bunch of battleships so instead, we removed all protection...until we realized we are still going to have conventional battles at sea (Friedman's US Destroyers 2nd edition). Then came the Burkes, and those have begun to step back into the rhelm of survivability.

For this exercise, let's base both designs on the Arleigh Burke-class, and hopefully we can meet both the low-end DDG and high-end CG ships.

Beyond the Burke-class hull are there any designs people have in mind that might meet the designs or any extra requirements you might foresee?

Thanks, guys!

-navydavesof

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Dave,

Just a few thoughts for consideration...

Maybe add shallow water ASW to the Burke lite? I don't really know shallow water ASW technology so I don't know what that entails (different frequency sonar??).

Will either of these be tasked with NSFS? Is the Burke hull structurally rated for a Mk71?

Regards,
Bob

As the Burke stands now, I don't think the Burke can take the stresses emparted by a Mk71. However, she has a huge hull, and reinforcing is not a problem. I have already asked NAVSEA about adding the Mk71 to the Burkes, and they said drawing up SHIPALTs to retrofit existing hulls with the Mk71 would not be a problem at all. Like any good engineers, structural forces are the first thing that jumps to their minds.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Looking forward to seeing these concepts, Dave - alternate Burkes would be quite interesting. One could also take a couple pages from the Atago class the JMSDF have with regards to some of the work, and/or expanding the hull. Or, alternatively, the King Sejong's of the ROKN, which are like a Burke gone berserk for capacity.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/

Well, thanks! I am working on the mid-range capabilities Burke, and there are only a very few things I still have not decided. The only real concern is the issue of a helicopter hanger: double, single, or none at all and maybe a Mk45 Mod4 5"/62 aft of the aft VLS? Keep in mind the Burkes were originally supposed to have a 5" gun where the aft AUX generator is (the AUX can go anywhere).

The goal for the lesser-than-Aegis Burke is to save money and build more ships with an adequate AAW system. Over the last two years I have become very, very well educated on the New Threat Upgrade system, and it's clear that the NTU with the Mk74 WDS is the best non-phased array radar and weapons direction system in the history of radar.

The NTU experts (Bectech) have educated me though a lot of conversations that the addition of the SPQ-9B will eliminate the vulnerabilities that killed the NTU in the mid 1990s. The "poor man's Aegis" is now the "economical man's Aegis".

Now, on to the Flight III Burkes. To me, the Flight III Burkes can very well be excellent replacements to the Ticonderogas. It is imperative that the first 5 Ticos be replaced as soon as possible, and then every Tico needs to be replaced on a 1 for 1 basis as they are decommissioned. This is to say nothing of the Strike Cruiser (CSG).

I recently came into possession of the official Flight III Arleigh Burke drawings proposed by Lockheed in 1989 (read this post and weep all those in envy), and they offer a whole lot of potential for a base-line cruiser. (The man who gave them to me is reading this, and I take my hat off to you, my dear sir.) The Flight III drawings are an excellent starting point. All the lessons learned from the Flight IIA ships really provide an excellent formula to add to the Flight III...so I guess this would be the Flight IIIA! There are a few things to add to the design. Those include the possibly of an aft 5" gun and the Mk110. All the other stuff is literally bolt-on.

One of the biggest things to keep in mind is that the Flight III Burke has a single level deck. The aft deck does not drop down like on the existing Burkes. It instead goes all the way from bow to stern on the same deck. As a result the VLS is aft of the flight deck, and there is room for a Mk45 Mod4 aft. For all those not paying attention, this is most totally awesome.

So, I am working feverously on this concept, and any input is greatly appreciated.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Well, it's my turn again, so:

Flight IB ship is going to have a single helo hanger aft, a UAV hanger, Phalanx, RAM, improved NTU, 3 SPG-51D/E illuminators, a Mk71 Mod2, and two Mk110s. Smaller things include two Mk38 Mod2 30mm Bushmasters, SRBOC and Nulka decoys, and more Harpoons. As far as domes and counter measures you can expect the modernizations you see on the Flight IIA Burkes. Visually there will not be very many differences other than the radar arrangement and the weapon systems.

The questions for this post are:

1) Why do people think the harpoon is not very important? If it is important, shouldn't we have more than 8 missiles on a ship at a time? Some say the SM is used as anti-ship, but it's not. The only thing it can do is provide a soft-kill if it kills anything at all. If we say the Harpoon is not important and can be deleted from the ships, then we are willing to give up surface ships' only anti-ship missile capability. Can we afford to give up that capability?

2) What use is the Mk110 really? The accepted reason is for anti-boat utility. Is all that weight, space, and cost really worth an "anti-boat" capability? Would it really be used for anti-air, or just the hope of engaging boats? I ask you to keep in mind the Mk38 and Phalanx are both really good boat killers. For minimal additional investment in space and weight you can have a 5" gun.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

The Mk110 claims to be effective against airborne targets, however, with only a "one-directional" radar, I'm skeptical. The Phalanx has a "two-directional" radar in that it tracks both incoming target and outgoing shells. Tracking only the incoming target has been proven to be a difficult AAW task. So, I'm doubtful that the Mk110 is an equivalent for the CIWS. The Mk110 might be effective against a slow moving target like a helo but someone would have to prove to me that it could function successfully in the anti-missle role.

In the anti-ship role, both ought to be adequate with the difference being range and reload. The Mk110 has an advertised range of 9 miles versus the CIWS which has a range of 1-5 miles (sources vary widely). The Mk110 has an automated magazine for reloads versus the CIWS which must be manually reloaded and could constitute a problem in an extended engagement, if I understand it correctly.

So, for air targets, CIWS would be the preferred choice. For ship targets, the Mk110 would be preferred. This conclusion is based on advertised capabilities only. I have no access to actual performance data for either system.

Regards,
Bob

Concerning the Mk110 I don't think it can sink any kind of ship. What it can do is rip up it's superstructure. It cannot support anyone on the ground. It's AAW ability may be limited by itself but if it were tied into the Mk160 GFCS any director on the ship could contol it...so a SPG-51 could be act as a much better set of eyes. The Mk110 just seems to be mostly a small-time defensive system. Can anyone dispute this?

Does anyone have a good reason why Harpoons should be either reduced in numbers or eliminated from a ship's armament? One should keepi in mind the SM2 is not an effective anti-ship weapon.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I should have been clearer. By "ship", I mean patrol craft and smaller. Bigger than that (Corvette and above) would require Harpoons.

I remain skeptical about the Mk110 in the anti-air/missle role. It's very hard to guide a SAM to its target even with continuous course corrections. It's got to be many times harder to aim an unguided shell on a ballistic trajectory and achieve a hit. The only saving grace is the sheer number of rounds (the wall of lead approach) which can increase the odds of a hit. While the radar may have improved, the basic scenario hasn't changed from WWII days of aiming a 40mm Bofors. You aim at the point where you think the target will be by the time the shell gets there and hope for the best. If the target is maneuvering, your fire solution is worthless. It doesn't matter how perfect the radar is and how perfect the resultant fire solution is, the slightest change in direction or speed by the target and you won't hit it. Hits occur because of statistical luck (the wall of lead, again) or because the target is travelling in a straight course long enough for a shell to arrive.

The need to solve this fundamental problem is exactly why CIWS was developed.

Has any non-CIWS gun (76 mm, for instance) ever achieved a hit on a missle? Even in exercises?

Regards,
Bob

The operational difference of the Mk110 vs the Phalanx, is that it's not a direct-hit kill weapon when it comes to AAW/Anti-Missile fire - the gun can fire timed or variable-timed fuse rounds, loaded with tungsten frag - the rate of fire, and the ranged detonation of the frag rounds, would cause rather significant damage to incoming targets - it's pretty damn devastating, the footage I've seen. Against any kind of larger ship, it's most certainly not going to be a sinking gun, but it'll cause a fair degree of damage to other portions - the Mk2 Bofors, predecessor to the Mk110/Mk3, on our Halifax frigates, caused a fair ammount of perforative damage on the Huron Sinkex, but not enough to seriously take on water. It's more the kind of weapon you'd see ripping up computers and crew with the frag effect - it can pack quite decent penetrative punch, but it doesn't make a very large hole unless you really work it just right. The Mk110 was demonstrated on Future Weapons, so you can get a better visual idea of what the weapon can do.

I would definitely agree that it's not exactly the kind of weapon you would replace CIWS with, but it certainly would have a useful redundant support role. It's a light, rapid fire gun that can pack a mean punch against targets with minimal protection. I certainly would not like to be on the receiving end of one of those guns, as I would quite imagine the internal damage from the frag in the rounds would just be sadistic.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/

I agree with Sauragnmon with the impressive apparent destructive effect of the Mk110. I think it really is a "death by a thousand paper-cuts type of thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrWZ0DhXVHU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtOgY8L3Jy0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf941T7pFTY

So we can all see that it has a certain cool factor, but so does the new 76mm gun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrUXDAhP ... re=related

Even though the Navy employs a number of these weapons on it's Perry-class FFs, a huge problem with it is that it is a horrifically dangerous gun to work on while it is in operation. Until the Navy redesigned loading mechanisms, the rotating magazine had a tendency to grab sailors' appendages and rip them off.

So, watching these videos, especially the Future Weapons one, we see that when taking out targets, these weaon systems would have to deliver a number of rounds on top of each target. When those targets are numerous, at long range, and maneuvering, the capability shown in Future Weapons will not be achievable.

Even though it has an advertized anti-anti-ship missile capability, I think we can drop that. I would say it has a chance against straight runners like Exocet, early Harpoon, or Silkworm, but so does the 5"/38 on the battleships. Highly maneuverable missiles, though, no way. Aircraft? When are aircraft going to get that close?....never...but hey, saying that they do, it's clear you will own them.

So, why would this weapon system be a good idea for new ship construction, LCS, DDG, CG, etc?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

The Mk110 looks to be a pretty good small craft killer. In the videos, they claim an armor penetrating capability. I wonder what that means? I suspect that it would not penetrate much in the way of armor given that the round is pre-scored to fragment and does not appear to be a shaped charge type.

To answer the question, I wouldn't hesitate to make it the main armament on a patrol vessel. For anything larger (corvette or bigger), it would be one of those things where, if you've designed in all your other needs and find yourself with leftover deck space and internal volume, why not add one? It would be a nice complement to other weapons. But, I wouldn't take anything away from a design in order to add one.

According to Navweaps:

The SAP was one of the "original" rounds, and is not explicitly listed for the Mk110, but I would imagine that it could be used.

Additionally, the maximum range of the Mk110 appears to be 17 kilometres when using HCER ammo, which isn't too bad.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

So as a secondary battery which would be better: Mk45 Mod 4 5"/62caliber or Mk110 57mm?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I guess that depends on the individual ship's (or the class) role and existing primary armament. An NSFS might benefit from a secondary Mk110 to deal with the small craft and patrol vessels that might be expected in a close to shore setting during fire support. On the other hand, Burke variants which only have one 5" gun currently, would be better off having a second 5" gun. If after providing a second 5" gun there is still room, then feel free to add a Mk110.

Does anyone have a feel for how effective the Mk45 5" gun is in the anti-small craft role? The only example I'm aware of, the Vincennes, the 5" guns proved only marginally effective against small, fast, maneuverable (Boghammers?) craft.

Regards,
Bob

Harpoons:

In the case a Burke were going to get underway with the intent of performing anti-ship missions in an area where there are no resupply points, how many Harpoons could you fit on a Burke in a reasonable arrangement? Keep in mind the Mk141 is the only in-service Harpoon launcher at the moment. How many and where would you put these missiles/launchers? I have built an arrangement of 40 missiles. I would like to see what some of you could arrange.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Alright here's a quick off the top of my head arrangement. Not sure how easy/feasible this would be but I'm looking at available deck space here.

Remove the king posts between the funnel and add a simple sheet steel deck capable of supporting two sets of launchers in the standard criss-cross arrangement. On the weather deck next to the stacks you could put 3 launchers aimed outboard combined with the two sets one deck higher. That makes 24 on the weather deck, 12 per side plus 8 above making 32 total. Add the usual 8 behind the after stack and you have the magic total of 40.

If you're doing a Flight I or if helo ops aren't a high priority you could simply bolt a bunch of launchers to the flight deck and call it quites.

Again, just off the top of my head here, feel free to shoot it full of holes

_________________
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

Thank you very much, Cliffe. The super stacking of missile launchers is not something I had thought of. I would question vulnerability with the missiles arranged like that, however, it is an unconventional arrangement. Thank you! The helo deck, I think, has to be kept clear about no matter what. I believe more can be arranged aft, and perhaps even forward of the super structure. Thanks again!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Good afternoon, guys!

Here are a couple pictures of the slow but effective progress I have made on the Improved NTU Burke. As you can see, the mast alterations for the SPS-49(V)5 has been arranged, and the forward housing for both the SPS-48G and forward SPG-51E illuminator have been arranged. As you can see the SPY-1 array slots have been capped over with as thin styrene as I could find, and the Harpoon arrangement, to be positioned on the O1 level, is framed out on the weather deck (main deck).


The following step is going to be construction of the helicopter hanger and finishing of the forward superstructure. Then, the addition of O1 structure for the Harppons amidships and room for the Mk110.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

David,

Looking good! Keep going. I can't remember from our various discussions... were you planning on hiding the Harpoons? Attached is a drawing of an Ambassador class patrol craft with the recessed/hidden Harpoons and CIWS base.

Regards,
Bob