Arleigh Burke Class Concepts

[JFC Fuller]

Using the word "cruiser" doesn't help anybody, its a meaningless term.

As both TomS and Moose allude to the USN has some fundamental decisions to wrestle with, all of which will be major cost drivers, the Director of Surface Warfare outlines some of them in the above linked article:

Deep magazines: thats lots of VLS cells, especially if bigger cells are needed for the Conventional Prompt Strike weapon in addition to 96-128 (or more?) Mk-41s - thats a major size and cost driver and requires the navy to answer exactly how many cells of each type it needs. With the CPW thats a whole new set of questions around target set and CONOPs.

Big sensor: How big? DDG51 Flight III has 14ft x 14ft AN/SPY-6 arrays with 37 RMAs and that is a massive improvement over the Aegis ships. Many years ago, at the tail-end of CG(X), the USN was looking at 22ft arrays and Raytheon has been touting an AN/SPY-6 with 69 RMA arrays but that would drive up the need for cooling, computing, power, top-weight and space...and thus cost. The AN/SPY-6 programme is now relatively mature so the USN should be able to get a good idea of just what it needs.

Other payloads: Rail-guns and lasers, currently not that mature so assessing exactly what they mean in terms of space, weight and power requirements is going to be a challenge, how do you handle that, do you handle that?

Signature: clearly one of the cost drivers in the DDG1000 programme.

Speed, if you are going to build something pushing 15k tons or more that produces enough electrical power to run all of the above it is going to need some serious installed power for the high sustained speeds needed to provide the Air Defence role for the CVBGs. That will further drive size and cost.

All this on a platform that may be built in relatively small numbers if it gets boxed-in as a CG47 replacement (12, one per planned CVBG as the Navy has been trying to do with the current cruisers), so there might be little opportunity to make changes during the build programme.

As for the DDG51, the Navy managed a near perfect balance between capability and cost just a time when the need to make major structural changes in order to upgrade them evaporated (thanks to VLS and miniaturisation of electronics). A 30+ year build programme is a staggering achievement but moving away from that platform was always going to be hard.

 

[netfires]

Imo it's going to become increasingly difficult to justify procuring large multibillion dollar surface combatants like the Burke, especially if they are just even further upgraded Burkes without the power margin left to integrate directed energy weapons of any consequence. The magazine depth problem isn't going to go away and the coming proliferation of long-range hypersonic missile systems is going to make the imperative to improve survivability against large missile salvos even greater. Navy can talk distributed lethality all it wants but if it continues to pour billions into building large surface combatants optimized for land attack and (charitably) ASW it is going to burn a lot of money for fairly limited capability.

Genuinely new doctrinal concepts badly need to be evaluated if the Navy is going to stay relevant in a world where American naval power is vigorously contested by a near-peer navy with increasingly robust ISR and maritime strike capabilities. If we keep buying an increasingly small number of increasingly expensive major surface combatants that are hard pressed to defend themselves we will find it increasingly difficult to execute any kind of meaningful sea control strategy in wartime. Burke production ought to be terminated after Flight III, but as JFC Fuller noted above, it's going to be hard for the Navy to make that decision.

 

[bobbymike]

Navy Prefers Fielding 'Revolutionary' Combat Capability Through New Weapons Rather than New Hull Designs - USNI News

SAN DIEGO – The Navy is striving to field “revolutionary combat capability” in new ships and through mid-life modernizations, but it can do so while keeping risk low by focusing on new weapons and systems rather than radical new hull designs, the program executive officer for ships said. Noting...

news.usni.org

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

DDG 51 Flight III Design Development white paper from 1989 via MihoshiK at NavWeapons.com:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=4FCDZBMD

Does anybody still have this document?

 

[MihoshiK]

DDG 51 Flight III Design Development white paper from 1989 via MihoshiK at NavWeapons.com:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=4FCDZBMD

Does anybody still have this document?

Here it is.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

DDG 51 Flight III Design Development white paper from 1989 via MihoshiK at NavWeapons.com:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=4FCDZBMD

Does anybody still have this document?

Here it is.

Thanks

 

[Grey Havoc]

Cost of upgrading Arleigh Burke destroyers may not be worth it, says US Navy

The U.S. Navy says upgrading the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers may not be worth the money, but the move has support in Congress.

www.defensenews.com

 

[Firefinder]

Stuff like that makes me wonder if we are going to get a Virginia version of the Zumwalt.

Seawolf Class= Zumwalt Class.
Both are only three ship class that got cancel cause their tech cost too much and had enough teething issues to make it seem not worth it
Virginia class= ????????? Class.
Basically a cheaper version of the before class mass produce without most of the problems... Thru some of the new Virginias apparently rival the Seawolf in stealth and hitting power.

 

[Moose]

Stuff like that makes me wonder if we are going to get a Virginia version of the Zumwalt.

Seawolf Class= Zumwalt Class.
Both are only three ship class that got cancel cause their tech cost too much and had enough teething issues to make it seem not worth it
Virginia class= ????????? Class.
Basically a cheaper version of the before class mass produce without most of the problems... Thru some of the new Virginias apparently rival the Seawolf in stealth and hitting power.

Ideally? Sure. Unfortunately, there's not much sign that they're thinking that logically.

Although the SSN-21 to SSN-774 changeover was far from smooth and issue-free, the Navy remained admirably focused on getting to the new class and was able to produce something which stayed largely consistent with the original goal to get Seawolf quieting in a smaller, more affordable mass-production boat. What is currently called the Large Surface Combatant program has reset its vision twice (that they've acknowledged) since late 2016, and has pushed the in-service date about a decade to the right. Messaging has been inconsistent, as has the vision for the fleet architecture it will support and even what its primary roles will be. 4 years ago I was impatient but not pessimistic, now I'm increasingly both.

 

[sferrin]

I pretty much gave up when they ditched the Zumwalt hull. A new everything does not inspire confidence given the USNs performance over the last 30 years.

 

[Volkodav]

A senior Bath Iron Works engineer I worked with a decade or so ago related his experience on the DDG-51 design and build verses the Australian Air Warfare Destroyer design and build, he described the DDG-51 as the equivalent of the entire ship design capacity of the eastern sea board of the United States working on nothing but the new destroyer for a decade. There was no try, only do, they had to make it work, if there were problems they fixed them, cost over runs they absorbed them. The comparison being, had the DDG-51 faced the same level of political and media carry on as the Australian DDG build, the project would have died, because it was bigger, harder, more expensive and had more real problems, it would never have survived the political environment we have today.

Designing and building a new capability is a very demanding and difficult thing, there are mistakes, there are setbacks, schedule slips, design changes, that's why first of class takes so much longer and costs so much more than follow on examples. Unfortunately there are so few big transformational projects these days that many decision makers just don't have the vision, experience or risk appetite required to see them through.

When the other guy is prepared to fail and try again, over and over, and you throw in the towel and revert to safe proven "easy" options at the slightest hint of trouble, then the other guy is eventually going to leave you in his dust, it doesn't really matter how far behind he was at the start, its just a matter of time. Its even worse when you prove something works but then give up on it because its too expensive or conservative elements demand a return to the old ways. That's because the other guy is watching and you have just shown him the way forward, then stepped aside to let him over take you. You saved him years of work and piles of treasure working it out for himself, then not only gave away your lead, but wasted time and money you could have used on stretching your lead on polishing and perfecting the stuff you developed 30 or 40 years ago, while they work towards perfecting the new stuff you walked away from.

 

[TomS]

Stumbled across a very brief summary of a 2008 MIT student project to study the feasibility of retrofitting Flight I Burkes to accommodate LCS mission modules. In very brief, it's doable, at the expense of the aft 64-cell VLS, the towed array, and a CIWS.

https://2n.mit.edu/sites/default/files/documents/DDG-51%20-08.pdf

 

[sferrin]

Sounds like a way to make a more expensive LCS.

 

[Conspirator]

are they ever going to get rid of or replace the mk 32 tri tube torpedo launchers?

 

[Yellow Palace]

are they ever going to get rid of or replace the mk 32 tri tube torpedo launchers?

Why? They're perfectly good at making surface ship warfare officers think they can do something about submarines, and don't cost too much for something that's essentially a decoration.

 

[Conspirator]

are they ever going to get rid of or replace the mk 32 tri tube torpedo launchers?

Why? They're perfectly good at making surface ship warfare officers think they can do something about submarines, and don't cost too much for something that's essentially a decoration.

lol did not know that but okay............... but im saying like is there anything better or more updated that they could put on there???

 

[Conspirator]

are they ever going to get rid of or replace the mk 32 tri tube torpedo launchers?

Why? They're perfectly good at making surface ship warfare officers think they can do something about submarines, and don't cost too much for something that's essentially a decoration.

lol did not know that but okay............... but im saying like is there anything better or more updated that they could put on there???

no nukes though

 

[TomS]

are they ever going to get rid of or replace the mk 32 tri tube torpedo launchers?

Why? They're perfectly good at making surface ship warfare officers think they can do something about submarines, and don't cost too much for something that's essentially a decoration.

lol did not know that but okay............... but im saying like is there anything better or more updated that they could put on there???

Honestly, no. The Navy standardized on 324mm lightweight torpedoes because it's a good size for aircraft use and using the same weapons for over-the-side tubes is convenient (basically, you carry all aircraft torps and strip off the parachute pack in the unlikely event that you need to reload the Mk 32).

They are continuing to look at small mini-torps (6-inch diameter) that we might see as UAV armament or anti-torpedo weapons. But those won't replace the regular lightweight torps.

 

[TomS]

Sounds like a way to make a more expensive LCS.

I think the idea was to find a way to embark the LCS modules somewhere in the event that LCS itself got cancelled (this was written at a moment when LCS 3 and 4 were not certain to fund).

But yeah, it seems like a pretty expensive platform for that capability, especially with only 32 VLS tubes left up front.

This was a student design project, so the main goal was presumably to take a ship with known characteristics and do something to it that would allow them to exercise the design tools.

 

[Conspirator]

are they ever going to get rid of or replace the mk 32 tri tube torpedo launchers?

Why? They're perfectly good at making surface ship warfare officers think they can do something about submarines, and don't cost too much for something that's essentially a decoration.

lol did not know that but okay............... but im saying like is there anything better or more updated that they could put on there???

Honestly, no. The Navy standardized on 324mm lightweight torpedoes because it's a good size for aircraft use and using the same weapons for over-the-side tubes is convenient (basically, you carry all aircraft torps and strip off the parachute pack in the unlikely event that you need to reload the Mk 32).

They are continuing to look at small mini-torps (6-inch diameter) that we might see as UAV armament or anti-torpedo weapons. But those won't replace the regular lightweight torps.

thats very convienent. honestly did not think of that. forgot we used them in aircraft, honestly i thought the japanese were the last ones to use torpedo planes. (yes i know i am very un educated)

 

[Conspirator]

HEY GUYS! here is some info i found​

​

​

US Navy eyes new design for next-generation destroyer​

By: David B. Larter   October 13, 2020
97

The Arleigh Burke-class destroyer Stout transits through the Strait of Hormuz in May. The Navy will use the Burke-class as a model for how it builds a new class of large surface combatant. (Cpl. Gary Jayne III/U.S. Marine Corps)​

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy is looking to build a new generation of destroyers from a clean-sheet design, following the model of one of its most successful ship classes, the Arleigh Burke-class DDG, the service’s top officer said Tuesday.
The idea, colloquially referred to in-house as DDG Next, is to build a new hull smaller than the nearly 16,000-ton Zumwalt-class destroyer but still big enough to accommodate a larger missile magazine, Adm. Michael Gilday told a virtual audience at Defense One’s State of the Navy event.
“I don’t want to build a monstrosity. But I need deeper magazines on ships than I have right now,” the chief of naval operations said. “I’m limited with respect to DDG Flight IIIs in terms of what additional stuff we could put on those ships. … So the idea is to come up with the next destroyer, and that would be a new hull. The idea would be to put existing technologies on that hull and update and modernize those capabilities over time.”

The US Navy is going to need a bigger boat, and it’s getting ready to buy one​

The U.S. surface Navy is moving rapidly toward buying a new large surface ship that will replace the aging cruisers.
By: David Larter
The Navy is supposed to start buying the new ship in 2025, according to the service’s 2020 30-year shipbuilding plan, though it’s unclear how its forthcoming force structure assessment will affect those plans. In his recent speech on the Defense Department’s plan for a 500-plus ship Navy, Defense Secretary Mark Esper made no mention of the future large surface combatant.
To avoid another costly failure, such as the canceled next-generation cruiser or severely truncated DDG-1000 program, the service is harkening back to its successful Arleigh Burke program, the mainstay of the Navy’s surface combatant program for the past 30 years, Gilday said. Much like on the forthcoming Constellation-class frigates, the service plans to install fielded systems on the new ship and upgrade them over time.


“So think DDG-51 (that’s exactly what we did): We had a new hull but we put Aegis on it,” Gilday said. “We put known systems that were reliable and were already fielded out in the fleet. That’s kind of the idea. I call it DDG Next to kind of right-size it. Smaller than a Zumwalt but packing some heat nonetheless.”
The Navy estimates it would need $22 billion annually in constant year 2019 dollars to execute its old shipbuilding plan, though the Congressional Budget Office put the estimate more than 30 percent higher. A major driver in the difference between the CBO and Navy estimate was the cost of a future large surface combatant, according the Congressional Research Service.
Sign up to get The Drift
Sign up for our weekly newsletter to go deeper into all things Navy with David Larter.
Subscribe
The emergence of hypersonic missiles has been a driving factor in the Navy’s desire to field a new large surface combatant since such weapons wont fit in the current vertical launch system cells on Burke-class destroyers and existing cruisers. They will, however, fit in the Virginia Payload Module being built into the Block V Virginia submarines awarded last year

 

[TomS]

HEY GUYS! here is some info i found​

​

We've been sort of beating this to death for quite a while here: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/usn-large-surface-combatant-delayed.31516/page-3

DDG Next (aka LSC) is not an Arleigh Burke derivative (or at least, I really, really hope it doesn't just become DDG-51 Flight IV)

 

[Conspirator]

HEY GUYS! here is some info i found​

​

We've been sort of beating this to death for quite a while here: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/usn-large-surface-combatant-delayed.31516/page-3

DDG Next (aka LSC) is not an Arleign Burke derivative (or at least, I really, really hope it doesn't just become DDG-41 Flight IV)

oh sorry guys

 

[Yellow Palace]

are they ever going to get rid of or replace the mk 32 tri tube torpedo launchers?

Why? They're perfectly good at making surface ship warfare officers think they can do something about submarines, and don't cost too much for something that's essentially a decoration.

lol did not know that but okay............... but im saying like is there anything better or more updated that they could put on there???

Fresh air would be a good bet. It's about as effective, but cheaper to maintain. It's been seriously proposed but the surface warfare officers don't like feeling defenceless against submarines. They are defenceless, LWTs or not, but it makes them feel better.

As far as participating in discussions goes, you're young and enthusiastic. That's great, feel free to join in! Some people on here have a lot of experience, and most of the high profile projects have seen a lot of discussion.

That means a lot of ground has been covered. If something piques your interest, have a dig through the archives - the forum search function is fairly good. You'll probably learn something (I usually do) and then you'll be in a better position to join in the discussion.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Stumbled across a very brief summary of a 2008 MIT student project to study the feasibility of retrofitting Flight I Burkes to accommodate LCS mission modules. In very brief, it's doable, at the expense of the aft 64-cell VLS, the towed array, and a CIWS.

Regarding that:

LCS Burke - Shipbucket

 

[that_person]

When I was trying to dig up more info on the MEU, I came across some paper about DDG-51 procurement.

It also discussed alternative options (modernizing the original Tico's, Virginia's, Kidd's, Spraunce's, and Perry's), but arguably the most interesting was a proposal to lengthen the Burke hull by 12', and installing another 32 VLS cells on the bow.

Production costs would go up another 19 million USD, or another 2%

https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=712318

 

[Hobbes]

$19M would be the cost of the hull only. IIRC VLS modules are more expensive than that (not to mention filling them with missiles)

 

[DWG]

are they ever going to get rid of or replace the mk 32 tri tube torpedo launchers?

Why? They're perfectly good at making surface ship warfare officers think they can do something about submarines, and don't cost too much for something that's essentially a decoration.

lol did not know that but okay............... but im saying like is there anything better or more updated that they could put on there???

Honestly, no. The Navy standardized on 324mm lightweight torpedoes because it's a good size for aircraft use and using the same weapons for over-the-side tubes is convenient (basically, you carry all aircraft torps and strip off the parachute pack in the unlikely event that you need to reload the Mk 32).

(Bit late but) one option to replace the Mk 32 is what we did in the Type 23s, with a couple of fixed tubes per side firing out of the helicopter magazine space.

 

[TomS]

(Bit late but) one option to replace the Mk 32 is what we did in the Type 23s, with a couple of fixed tubes per side firing out of the helicopter magazine space.

This even exists as the Mk 32 Mod 9 (in the RCN Halifax class and the RAN Hobart class).

The USN also studied a canister launcher that could carry a bunch of different size weapons interchangeably (basically VLS for torpedoes) with basically zero maintenance required. I'm not finding information on it now, but this was late 90s timeframe, IIRC. The ejection mechanism was an air-bag gas generator.

But all of these still leave you with the basic issue of kicking a lightweight torp over the side far too close to the launch ship for comfort.

 

[Yellow Palace]

But all of these still leave you with the basic issue of kicking a lightweight torp over the side far too close to the launch ship for comfort.

I rather like the characterisation of surface-launched lightweight torpedoes as being the world's best depth charge. Gives you something to throw at a submarine that got too close, with a reasonable chance of doing something, but not really something you should use to go hunting them.

My alternative suggestion of using the bower anchor as a wrecking ball was received poorly.

 

[Moose]

But all of these still leave you with the basic issue of kicking a lightweight torp over the side far too close to the launch ship for comfort.

I rather like the characterisation of surface-launched lightweight torpedoes as being the world's best depth charge.

Which among the reasons why the cheap, flexible deck mount persists.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Any reason why an AB class (USS Patrick Gallagher) was ordered in a flight IIA standard amid the Flight III's? Not being a nautical person it seems a bit odd.

 

[TomS]

Any reason why an AB class (USS Patrick Gallagher) was ordered in a flight IIA standard amid the Flight III's? Not being a nautical person it seems a bit odd.

Budget shenanigans. That ship was added by Congress and incrementally funded across two Fiscal Years, so its contract wasn't finalized until after the multi-year contract that funded the transition to Flight III.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Thanks mate.

 

[aonestudio]

The first DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer to be built in the Flight III configuration, the future Jack H. Lucas (DDG 125), was successfully launched at Huntington Ingalls Industries, Ingalls Shipbuilding division, June 4.

Saved News Module

U.S. Navy Launches First Flight III Guided Missile Destroyer, the future Jack H. Lucas

PASCAGOULA, Miss. – The first DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer to be built in the Flight III configuration, the future Jack H. Lucas (DDG 125), was successfully launched at

www.navy.mil

 

[aonestudio]

PACIFIC OCEAN (June 16, 2021) Senior Chief Sonar Technician (Surface) Ryan Markham and Sonar Technician (Surface) 2nd Class Bradley Espinosa explain anti-submarine warfare (ASW) aboard the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer USS Howard (DDG 83) June 16, 2021. Howard is currently underway conducting routine maritime operations in U.S. 3rd Fleet. (U.S. Navy video by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Jason Isaacs)

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKPspP32RBk

 

[apparition13]

Question on replacing the Ticos - why not lengthen the Burkes?

Burke - Length: 155 meters, Beam: 20m, Draft: 9.3m, displacement (flight III): 9300 long tons.

Fargo class cruiser - L: 185m, B: 20.2m, Draft: 6.7m, displacment: 14464 long tons.

The two ship designs have the same beam, so why not lengthen the Burkes to match the Fargo's L/B ratio? The Cleveland and Fargo design did have top-weight issues, but Burke has more draft, and a 20 percent lengthening shouldn't result in a 50 percent weight gain, so I don't really see that as being a problem.

Add a 30 meter plug to a Burke (as a new build, I'm not saying rebuild an old Burke), maybe between the main superstructure and the forward funnel, which would add room for two more 64 cell Mk41 modules, plus additional fuel, command centers, etc. The end result would be something like the COEA Power Projection Ship design. It seems a lot more straightforward, and quicker, than waiting around for a new design to mature in 15-20 years. Go ahead with that anyway, but as a stop-gap Tico replacement this seems to me to be a viable approach.

Is this a useful solution for replacing the Ticos? What technical downsides am I unaware of?

 

[CV12Hornet]

Question on replacing the Ticos - why not lengthen the Burkes?

Burke - Length: 155 meters, Beam: 20m, Draft: 9.3m, displacement (flight III): 9300 long tons.

Fargo class cruiser - L: 185m, B: 20.2m, Draft: 6.7m, displacment: 14464 long tons.

The two ship designs have the same beam, so why not lengthen the Burkes to match the Fargo's L/B ratio? The Cleveland and Fargo design did have top-weight issues, but Burke has more draft, and a 20 percent lengthening shouldn't result in a 50 percent weight gain, so I don't really see that as being a problem.

Add a 30 meter plug to a Burke (as a new build, I'm not saying rebuild an old Burke), maybe between the main superstructure and the forward funnel, which would add room for two more 64 cell Mk41 modules, plus additional fuel, command centers, etc. The end result would be something like the COEA Power Projection Ship design. It seems a lot more straightforward, and quicker, than waiting around for a new design to mature in 15-20 years. Go ahead with that anyway, but as a stop-gap Tico replacement this seems to me to be a viable approach.

Is this a useful solution for replacing the Ticos? What technical downsides am I unaware of?

The biggest hurdle is that the Burkes need more stability than the Clevelands, not less, what with the big honking heavy radar system placed as high up as they can manage. That's something that only gets worse when fitting the larger SPY-6, which also needs more support equipment. And yes, if you're going to do this you're fitting SPY-6, no sense in fitting an obsolescent radar. So practically speaking the hull plug needs to be accompanied by additional beam, and that means redrawing the plans from scratch, and at that point you've got a new design anyway and there's no real point to reusing Burke architecture.

Further, the problems with the Burke design going forward don't really include magazine depth, though the US Navy has signalled they'd like to fit more missile cells to the DDG(X). It's stuff like a new radar (the 14-foot SPY-6 fitted to the Flight IIIs is smaller than desirable), electrical power, the ability to fit new, larger weapons, and most especially manpower requirements. None of this is really achievable with a stretched Burke without putting in so much effort to redesign the thing that any point to reusing Burke architecture evaporates. Again.

 

[Foo Fighter]

(Cough) DDG 1000 (Cough).

 

[that_person]

I would say no. The Burke hull is a design from the 1980's that has been maximized to its fullest potential with the Flt 3. Anything more would be unreasonable IMO.