Arleigh Burke Flight IIA and III

That's likely to cause a fair row, given that far more capable cruisers are being retired on age grounds.
 
It's going to cost a lot more to refurbish and upgrade those Burkes.
 
Grey Havoc said:
It's going to cost a lot more to refurbish and upgrade those Burkes.
Click to expand...

Than what? Upgrading the Ticos? Probably not. And again, the biggest issues are probably structural not electronic. Ticos are very top heavy; Burkes have significant stability advantages.
 
Grey Havoc said:
It's going to cost a lot more to refurbish and upgrade those Burkes.
Click to expand...
As a rule of thumb the older a ship the more difficult and expensive to upgrade. There are all sorts of things that usually don't need work or replacement that need to be replaced, things that it was never planned to replace in their service lives.
 
Grey Havoc said:
It's going to cost a lot more to refurbish and upgrade those Burkes.
Click to expand...
Every time the Ticos go out they come back with cracks in the tank deck. The hulls are just clapped out. You can upgrade the electronics all you want, but eventually a Tico is going to get into a storm and just flat-out break in half the way things are going with those hulls.
 
Key point - the 3 whose service lives are being extended have just (for 2) and will soon (for the third) finish their full modernization:
“All three cruisers received extensive hull, mechanical and engineering, as well as combat system upgrades as part of an extended modernization program,” according to a service statement published today. “USS Gettysburg (CG-64) and USS Chosin (CG-65) completed modernization in fiscal year 2023 and fiscal year 2024, respectively. USS Cape St. George (CG-71) is on schedule to complete modernization this fiscal year.”

“As a former cruiser sailor, I know the incredible value these highly-capable warships bring to the fleet and I am proud of their many decades of service,” Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro said in the statement. “After learning hard lessons from the cruiser modernization program, we are only extending ships that have completed modernization and have the material readiness needed to continue advancing our Navy’s mission.”
Click to expand...
 
Josh_TN said:
So these will be the last three cruisers left in 2028?
Click to expand...
Yes but the retirements are only delayed by approx 3 years for each vessel. Per the link above the extension buys 10 years of cumulative ship service although haven't seen how that actually splits across the three.
 
Grey Havoc said:
That's likely to cause a fair row, given that far more capable cruisers are being retired on age grounds.
Click to expand...


Remember that the CG-47 class is really Aegis shoehorned into the AAW version of the DD-963 class (i.e. DDG-993); in other words the base HM&E design is 1960's era, and there's some endemic issues associated with cobbling Aegis onto the hull. DDG-53 is a mid 80's design, and intended from the outset for Aegis. This translates into lots of details that effect service life, such as dry vs wet bilge, tank designs, etc. The use of aluminum in CG superstructures also results in a maintenance nightmare due to cracking.

Also, there's economics in commonality - it is going to be easier to keep DDGs going since they are still in production then supporting CG system that were last built in the early 90's.

On the flip side "far more capable" is a considerable exaggeration. Somewhat more capable is more accurate, and that somewhat is dependent on actual material condition.
 
bobthemonkey said:
I’m pretty the that the model is a Flight IIA, so never had Harpoon it the first place.

Actually, the end shot in the article confirms this is a IIA (or later) - so all additional armament.
Click to expand...
Never had them, built for but not with, just like the large cutters.

However if they could place the connections and cables amidships behind the sliding padeyes there should be space between the forward and aft super structures.

There should be plenty of space for both, but with the dual purpose capabilities of some SM missiles having canister launched ASMs is much less important, where as JAGM can provide cheap(er) options to effectively engage drones and small vessels.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Hrm. replace Harpoon/NSM canisters?

I feel like I'd want to have both onboard.
Click to expand...

Harpoon is obsolescent at best. Any of the SAMs could be used instead with lower flight times and Tomahawks could be used to vastly longer ranges. Both can be fired in much larger numbers. The harpoon use case is pretty weak.
 
Josh_TN said:
Harpoon is obsolescent at best. Any of the SAMs could be used instead with lower flight times and Tomahawks could be used to vastly longer ranges. Both can be fired in much larger numbers. The harpoon use case is pretty weak.
Click to expand...

Except that Maritime Strike Tomahawk is still several years from IOC, SM-2 can't reach over the horizon, and SM-6 is limited in numbers and highly prized for air and missile defense. As old as it is, Harpoon needs to be kept for a while yet, and JAGM is not a viable replacement for it (Though this model does show a ship that does not actually have Harpoon right now.)
 
TomS said:
Except that Maritime Strike Tomahawk is still several years from IOC, SM-2 can't reach over the horizon, and SM-6 is limited in numbers and highly prized for air and missile defense. As old as it is, Harpoon needs to be kept for a while yet, and JAGM is not a viable replacement for it (Though this model does show a ship that does not actually have Harpoon right now.)
Click to expand...

AFAIK MST kits are being purchased now as part of the Blk5 update, and I would be shocked if the baseline Blk5 did not have at least a basic IIR capability against ships. Even Blk4 could be used on ships under some conditions (test video of this happening in 2014) and the last 245 tactoms got an improved anti ship capability of some kind.

IMO the situation where a target is within Harpoon range but outside SM-2 range is pretty niche. Blk3C kits will also remove the OTH limit. I would not remove Harpoon launchers on ships that had them but I would not waste any money or effort adding them to IIAs.
 
Josh_TN said:
I would not remove Harpoon launchers on ships that had them but I would not waste any money or effort adding them to IIAs.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm inclined to agree there. Especially because there are reasons beyond economics that those ships don't have Harpoons as built.

johnpjones1775 said:
However if they could place the connections and cables amidships behind the sliding padeyes there should be space between the forward and aft super structures.
Click to expand...

There was a reconstitution plan that proposed something like that. I think it required a platform to bridge the two structures because the space at the weather deck is a little too narrow. But my memory is hazy on that.
 
TomS said:
Oh, I'm inclined to agree there. Especially because there are reasons beyond economics that those ships don't have Harpoons as built.



There was a reconstitution plan that proposed something like that. I think it required a platform to bridge the two structures because the space at the weather deck is a little too narrow. But my memory is hazy on that.
Click to expand...
Eh, no bridge is necessary, just cross from one side to the other inside the ship.
The only real problem I could see from that placement is UNREP, the primary strike down hatch for food and many other goods is on the back of the forward super structure iirc.
 
Ainen said:
With sm-6(or even sm-2mr onwards) onboard you don't absolutely need them though
Click to expand...
Combined response:
Josh_TN said:
Harpoon is obsolescent at best. Any of the SAMs could be used instead with lower flight times and Tomahawks could be used to vastly longer ranges. Both can be fired in much larger numbers. The harpoon use case is pretty weak.
Click to expand...
I want Harpoons or NSMs so I don't waste SM2s or especially SM6s on ships, or Tomahawks on close targets.

Harpoons/NSMs are for the larger FACs, JAGMs for speedboats and USVs.



johnpjones1775 said:
The only real problem I could see from that placement is UNREP, the primary strike down hatch for food and many other goods is on the back of the forward super structure iirc.
Click to expand...
Oooh, yeah good call.

DO NOT mess with UNREP space! (stores loads on the boat sucked, it almost always went down the forward LET and trying to chain-gang pass boxes past the sail sucked)
 
Scott Kenny said:
Combined response:

I want Harpoons or NSMs so I don't waste SM2s or especially SM6s on ships, or Tomahawks on close targets.

Harpoons/NSMs are for the larger FACs, JAGMs for speedboats and USVs.




Oooh, yeah good call.

DO NOT mess with UNREP space! (stores loads on the boat sucked, it almost always went down the forward LET and trying to chain-gang pass boxes past the sail sucked)
Click to expand...
Harpoon/NSM should be for larger ships, one or two JAGM, and a 5” round or two is more than enough to not only mission kill a large FAC, but likely leave them completely crippled.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Harpoon/NSM should be for larger ships, one or two JAGM, and a 5” round or two is more than enough to not only mission kill a large FAC, but likely leave them completely crippled.
Click to expand...
I think the only ships getting into line-of-sight for Harpoons are likely to be FACs, but there may be a few oddities like the big Sa'ar-5 and -6 that would get within range. And a JAGM isn't likely to even mission kill an 85+ meter long ship.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom