Arleigh Burke Class Concepts

Yes. The best they could do (and what they should have done already) would be to go back and look at the old 1990s CGBL study. And even that would just be a stopgap.
 
I’m still not sure if that itself would work either. The CGBL to my understanding was just a lengthened Burke hull. This moves us back to square one. What the Navy really needs is a new hull design that is more on par with the Zumwalt or CG(X) than the Burke.
 
I was under the impression that CGBL consisted of Ticonderoga systems placed in clean-sheet hull designed to meet Burke survivability standards (and with the addition of certain cruiser capabilities like a second CIC which could not have been fitted into the Ticonderoga as their systems were squeezed into a Spruance hull).
 
That's basically it: Tico combat systems, Burke architecture, all in a hull big enough for the Navy's liking.
 
Having checked both "The CGBL – a Product Improved Version of the CG 52 by Philip Sims" and NAVSEA's DDG-51 Flight III development, I can confirm that the CGBL is considerably bigger than a Burke, even the hull-plugged ones considered for the Flight III (of 1989 vintage).

The CGBL has a Length Between Perpendiculars of 620ft, a Beam of 69ft and deep displacement of 13,675 tons.

Meanwhile the Flight I and II Burkes have identical dimensions of 466ft LBP, a Beam of 59ft, and deep displacements of, respectively, 8313 tons and 8473 tons (this is from the NAVSEA document, and will likely have increased in service)

The Level I Flight III (essentially a repeat Flight II) design had an identical length to Flights I and II, with beam slightly increased to 59.32 ft. Deep Displacement was 9155 tons.

The Level II Flight III (the one ultimately chosen before the end of the Cold War killed off the initial attempt at a Flight III) had a pair of hull-plugs (a 12ft plug forward, and a 28ft plug aft) increasing LBP to 506ft, Beam to 59.50 ft, and Deep Displacement to 10,710 tons.

The highest-risk Level III Flight III design had a single, 46 ft long parallel middle body hull-plug, increasing LBP to 512ft, Beam to 59.8ft and Deep Displacement to 11,896 tons.

CGBL was considerably larger than even the largest, highest risk version of the Burke Flight III conversions. It should be noted that CGBL was never intended to be built, but was intended to provide a viable baseline against which future cruiser designs could be compared. For example, it had full design and construction
margins plus service life reserves, in spite of the fact the it had an existing and low-risk combat system that was unlikely to increase in weight or volume. This unrealistic level of design margin ironically probably means it is considerably superior to any Burke-derived design in terms of margins for future additions.
 
Last edited:
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
Having checked both "The CGBL – a Product Improved Version of the CG 52 by Philip Sims" and NAVSEA's DDG-51 Flight III development, I can confirm that the CGBL is considerably bigger than a Burke, even the hull-plugged ones considered for the Flight III (of 1989 vintage).

The CGBL has a Length Between Perpendiculars of 620ft, a Beam of 69ft and deep displacement of 13,675 tons.

Meanwhile the Flight I and II Burkes have identical dimensions of 466ft LBP, a Beam of 59ft, and deep displacements of, respectively, 8313 tons and 8473 tons (this is from the NAVSEA document, and will likely have increased in service)

The Level I Flight III (essentially a repeat Flight II) design had an identical length to Flights I and II, with beam slightly increased to 59.32 ft. Deep Displacement was 9155 tons.

The Level II Flight III (the one ultimately chosen before the end of the Cold War killed off the initial attempt at a Flight III) had a pair of hull-plugs (a 12ft plug forward, and a 28ft plug aft) increasing LBP to 506ft, Beam to 59.50 ft, and Deep Displacement to 10,710 tons.

The highest-risk Level III Flight III design had a single, 46 ft long parallel middle body hull-plug, increasing LBP to 512ft, Beam to 59.8ft and Deep Displacement to 11,896 tons.

CGBL was considerably larger than even the largest, highest risk version of the Burke Flight III conversions. It should be noted that CGBL was never intended to be built, but was intended to provide a viable baseline against which future cruiser designs could be compared. For example, it had full design and construction
margins plus service life reserves, in spite of the fact the it had an existing and low-risk combat system that was unlikely to increase in weight or volume. This unrealistic level of design margin ironically probably means it is considerably superior to any Burke-derived design in terms of margins for future additions.
Click to expand...
They choose to produce one of the 1989 Flt 3 designs? Do you have a link or something ?
 
that_person said:
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
Having checked both "The CGBL – a Product Improved Version of the CG 52 by Philip Sims" and NAVSEA's DDG-51 Flight III development, I can confirm that the CGBL is considerably bigger than a Burke, even the hull-plugged ones considered for the Flight III (of 1989 vintage).

The CGBL has a Length Between Perpendiculars of 620ft, a Beam of 69ft and deep displacement of 13,675 tons.

Meanwhile the Flight I and II Burkes have identical dimensions of 466ft LBP, a Beam of 59ft, and deep displacements of, respectively, 8313 tons and 8473 tons (this is from the NAVSEA document, and will likely have increased in service)

The Level I Flight III (essentially a repeat Flight II) design had an identical length to Flights I and II, with beam slightly increased to 59.32 ft. Deep Displacement was 9155 tons.

The Level II Flight III (the one ultimately chosen before the end of the Cold War killed off the initial attempt at a Flight III) had a pair of hull-plugs (a 12ft plug forward, and a 28ft plug aft) increasing LBP to 506ft, Beam to 59.50 ft, and Deep Displacement to 10,710 tons.

The highest-risk Level III Flight III design had a single, 46 ft long parallel middle body hull-plug, increasing LBP to 512ft, Beam to 59.8ft and Deep Displacement to 11,896 tons.

CGBL was considerably larger than even the largest, highest risk version of the Burke Flight III conversions. It should be noted that CGBL was never intended to be built, but was intended to provide a viable baseline against which future cruiser designs could be compared. For example, it had full design and construction
margins plus service life reserves, in spite of the fact the it had an existing and low-risk combat system that was unlikely to increase in weight or volume. This unrealistic level of design margin ironically probably means it is considerably superior to any Burke-derived design in terms of margins for future additions.
Click to expand...
They choose to produce one of the 1989 Flt 3 designs? Do you have a link or something ?
Click to expand...

MihoshiK said:
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
Triton said:
DDG 51 Flight III Design Development white paper from 1989 via MihoshiK at NavWeapons.com:

Click to expand...
Does anybody still have this document?
Click to expand...
Here it is.
Click to expand...
 
What was the logic behind not including a helicopter hanger in original Flight I and II Burkes? Was that space ever used for anything on those ships? Seems like they could have put another 5" gun there or more VLS cells.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
What was the logic behind not including a helicopter hanger in original Flight I and II Burkes? Was that space ever used for anything on those ships? Seems like they could have put another 5" gun there or more VLS cells.
Click to expand...
Presumably, it was part cost-saving measure, part the fact that the ships they were replacing (Leahy-class CGs, Farragut/Adams DDGs) did not include a hanger either. Where the hanger currently is is where the aft VLS, Harpoon missiles, and torpedo tubes were on the Flight I/II ships; the torpedo tubes and missiles were retained on the Flight IIAs but not the Harpoons.

Now if you believe this image:

open_sys_arch.jpg


Then yes, a 5" gun or 32-cell VLS array would've fit there. In practice, some other structure was fitted in that space:

Arleigh-Burke-class-016.jpg


Unfortunately I have no idea what that odd structure just to the aft the rear VLS array is.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
What was the logic behind not including a helicopter hanger in original Flight I and II Burkes? Was that space ever used for anything on those ships? Seems like they could have put another 5" gun there or more VLS cells.
Click to expand...

CV12Hornet said:
Presumably, it was part cost-saving measure, part the fact that the ships they were replacing (Leahy-class CGs, Farragut/Adams DDGs) did not include a hanger either. Where the hanger currently is is where the aft VLS, Harpoon missiles, and torpedo tubes were on the Flight I/II ships; the torpedo tubes and missiles were retained on the Flight IIAs but not the Harpoons.
Click to expand...
According to Electric Greyhounds which goes into the difference between the Spruance and Burkes a hanger was consider unneeded.

The Burkes were design as a AAW/ASUW focus ships with ASW as a secondary roll. With their hunting grounds being in thefar north seas where the weather as a general rule is bad, thus the heavy focus on sea keeping at the time. The idea was that they be up there being a general pain in the Soviets ass lobbing Tomahawks Harpoons and Standards into their air and sea forces while doubling as a tripline for any mass air or sub attack on the Carriers or Reforger convoy’s to the south. While under water LA and Seawolfs did their thing.

The Navy felt ASW and general Helicopter ops would have too hamper and dangerous to under take with the ship being to busy fighting off soviet air attacks if weather cleared up.

Add the fact the the design concepts for what became the burke at the time had to have any flight deck on the stern, which is the worse spot for rough weather flight ops, instead of the center because of how they wanted the SPY1 arrays made the hangers seem like deadweight.

So they decided to do without.

This idea was immediately consider a bad idea once the Burke hit the Water which was when the Soviets falled.
 
CV12Hornet said:
Unfortunately I have no idea what that odd structure just to the aft the rear VLS array is.
Click to expand...
Looks to be some kind of gas turbine generator given the large exhaust.

CV12Hornet said:
Now if you believe this image:
Click to expand...
First time I saw it I thought it was a fan art but it has been used in talks like this one from the Naval Postgraduate School in 2006 https://www.slideserve.com/nerice/the-history-of-modular-payload-ships-1975-2005
Whether its stock 1980s or not I'm not sure, most of the systems and the helicopters/VTOL seem period specific to then but some bits (Mk 26, 8in Mk 71) seem rather odd options.
 
The original design omitted the hangar because the Burke was a direct replacement for the DDG-2s, which did not have a hangar either. Between the Spruances, the Ticos, and the FFGs, there were a lot of hangars in the fleet already. There wasn't enough money or manpower to add helos for the DDGs as well. The plan was that the DDGs could refuel and rearm helos from the other escorts without adding the cost of helos of their own.

That modular design DDG-51 is not quite representative of the actual ships built in Flight I and II. For starters, it seems to have moved or eliminated the #3 Ship Service Gas Turbine Generator that exhausts aft of the aft VLS. It's widely removed from the other machinery space as a survivability measure.
 
Anything non-concept related really belongs in the Military section, unless its a major change to the basic Burke design.
 
Another drawing of the Burke Flight III, from a 2009 NEJ article called "Getting AEGIS to Sea". It says Flight III Level II was selected, but shows the giant sonar dome, which was a Level III change. However, It doesn't explain why, so I'm a bit puzzled.
 

Attachments

  • Burke Flight III (1989) - Getting AEGIS to Sea.jpg
    Burke Flight III (1989) - Getting AEGIS to Sea.jpg
    97.1 KB · Views: 255
that_person said:
Another drawing of the Burke Flight III, from a 2009 NEJ article called "Getting AEGIS to Sea". It says Flight III Level II was selected, but shows the giant sonar dome, which was a Level III change. However, It doesn't explain why, so I'm a bit puzzled.
Click to expand...
Looks like it has most of the features of the Level II design, with further options for adding some Level III design capabilities on later ships (Improved SQS-89I Block III from FY97 onwards, Intercooled-Regenerative Turbines from FY99 onwards)

It should be pointed out that the Level II design was selected as a baseline in April 1988, and further changes could have been added further along in the design process, especially since the image from Getting Aegis to Sea is from May 1989.

The Level III design had some fairly significant alterations compared to the original Burke design, including a new hull design aft with two skegs, a hull plug of 46ft and box girders running a significant proportion of the ship's total length, so adding the some of the new systems onto the Level II hull later on in production may not have been as risky as going ahead with the new Level III hull.
 
Any guestimates on price compared to original price if Arleigh Burke had been to Flight III specs in terms of armement fit from the start - 61/64 cell VLS fore and aft, 5" gun forward, Phalanx fore and aft and hanger and flight deck for two LAMPS 3?
 
PMN1 said:
Any guestimates on price compared to original price if Arleigh Burke had been to Flight III specs in terms of armement fit from the start - 61/64 cell VLS fore and aft, 5" gun forward, Phalanx fore and aft and hanger and flight deck for two LAMPS 3?
Click to expand...
In all likelihood it been the same.

Cause the Restart has been a noted FURBAR due to having to basically restart multiple lines, like the MK41, and need to redesign multiple parts from the Propeller shaft sealling to power plants just to replace the parts who OG companies of the B1&2s went out of business.

To say nothing of the basically 11 hour redesign of the vessels after the second one to Fit the Spy6 and all the new gear.

I honestly doubt it came out cheaper or "safer" than keeping with the Zumwalts or the OG Block 3 design.
 
Conspirator said:
RLBH said:
sean hunter said:
are they ever going to get rid of or replace the mk 32 tri tube torpedo launchers?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
lol did not know that but okay............... but im saying like is there anything better or more updated that they could put on there???
Click to expand...
Not really. Unless you stuff some submarine-size Mk48 tubes in there instead... Which was apparently a thing for a while in the 1970s and into the early 1980s on design studies. Yes, blew my mind, too.

The better tool for SWOs is the VL-ASROC, and I say that as a submariner. A Mk46 or 54 is very short ranged, and a surface ship dropping one over the side is effectively on top of the sub, so therefore not the submarine's (present) target.
 
TomS said:
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
These two links might be useful for this conversation:

Revisiting DDGX/DDG-51 Concept Exploration

Methods for Naval Ship Concept and Propulsion Technology Exploration in a CGX Case Study

Both give a rough idea for what was being considered in terms of the range of capabilities considered for the Arleigh Burkes and CG(X).
Click to expand...

Wish Naval Engineers Journal wasn't so expensive.
Click to expand...
Even one professional journal outside my own specialty makes my wallet weep for mercy...
 
Firefinder said:
In all likelihood it been the same.

Cause the Restart has been a noted FURBAR due to having to basically restart multiple lines, like the MK41, and need to redesign multiple parts from the Propeller shaft sealling to power plants just to replace the parts who OG companies of the B1&2s went out of business.

To say nothing of the basically 11 hour redesign of the vessels after the second one to Fit the Spy6 and all the new gear.

I honestly doubt it came out cheaper or "safer" than keeping with the Zumwalts or the OG Block 3 design.
Click to expand...
Wrong Flight III. PMN1 is referring to the original late-80s Flight III, killed off by the Peace Dividend and replaced by the Flight IIA.

As for PMN1s original question, some of the late DDX studies were more capable than the Burkes as built, and some were based upon Tico hulls, so it would have been possible to get a 128-VLS cell destroyer had different decisions been made earlier on in the design process.
 
Last edited:
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
The Level III design had some fairly significant alterations compared to the original Burke design, including a new hull design aft with two skegs, a hull plug of 46ft and box girders running a significant proportion of the ship's total length, so adding the some of the new systems onto the Level II hull later on in production may not have been as risky as going ahead with the new Level III hull.
Click to expand...
It's fairly likely that in the design work which led to the Level I/II/III designs, the ship impact of each individual capability option was assessed.

Given that the ICR turbine became the WR21, one can't help but imagine that the USN going ahead with it for later Flight III ships (but not in an IEP configuration) would have some interesting knock-on effects.
 
asVAL said:
Hi there.
For some reason when I tried to open the file it said the pdf could not be loaded.
Could you repost this file, again, by any chance?
Click to expand...
Just tried it, works for me? And I tried from a different PC from which it was uploaded?
 
asVAL said:
Hi there.
For some reason when I tried to open the file it said the pdf could not be loaded.
Could you repost this file, again, by any chance?
Click to expand...

It works on my desktop Windows computer, but not on my Android phone. Must be a quirk in how the Android PDF viewer works for some reason.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom