Arleigh Burke Flight IIA and III

Scott Kenny said:
And a JAGM isn't likely to even mission kill an 85+ meter long ship.
Click to expand...
Ages ago I've seen on Quora a pic of a warship with a fairly large hangar getting absolutely obliterated in the rear end topside, the blast gouged a hole out of the hangar and midship, plus everything mast in the close vicinity was ripped down. The poster revealed that the damage was caused by a Hellfire thermobaric variant if my memories doesn't fail me.

JAGM with a good blast-frag sleeve and incendiary agents should pose a substantial threat, especially after penetrating several feet of steel (or better, aluminum or composite).
 
Scott Kenny said:
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.
Click to expand...
Where are you getting this LoS stuff from for harpoons? They have a range of like 75miles.
Not great but well beyond LoS unless you’re in an aircraft.

A mission kill is not hard to achieve…just damage the ship’s radar. Length and tonnage are pretty irrelevant if they have a conventional radar mounted on top of a mast.

Edit
BlockII harpoons have a 120nmi range
 
Last edited:
yeetmahboi said:
Ages ago I've seen on Quora a pic of a warship with a fairly large hangar getting absolutely obliterated in the rear end topside, the blast gouged a hole out of the hangar and midship, plus everything mast in the close vicinity was ripped down. The poster revealed that the damage was caused by a Hellfire thermobaric variant if my memories doesn't fail me.

JAGM with a good blast-frag sleeve and incendiary agents should pose a substantial threat, especially after penetrating several feet of steel (or better, aluminum or composite).
Click to expand...
Are you thinking of the Turkish destroyer that got hit by a sea sparrow by accident?

Edit
Google has found some results. Helo launched hellfire into an OHP.
Had it hit amidships or the superstructure, that very likely would have been a mission kill. If not one, definitely with two.
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y53fxeC-u5k
 
One last thing for the night.
I’m still not particularly convinced we’ll be seeing long range missile engagements between surface combatants.

To date every combat missile launch from a surface vessel has occurred within mk7 gun range. I think only 1 combat ASM launch not from a shore battery has occurred outside of mk7 range, and that was from a jet during the falklands war, and was only a few miles outside of mk7 range by just a few miles.

The farther away you launch the more warning and heads up you give your target, giving them time to react and engage their defenses. The closer you get the more element of surprise you get.
 
Scott Kenny said:
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.
Click to expand...
If you have hostile surface ships(including FACs) in firing range - it isn't waste, it's surface action(may as well be general action).
It isn't a waste. Also, while purpose-designed ASCMs are generally better at finding and selecting targets - it isn't necessarily true for older missiles.

Overall, while i am very much positive for JAGMs, harpoons are a yet another unnecessary weapon system onboard - low added value for real additional spending.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Where are you getting this LoS stuff from for harpoons? They have a range of like 75miles.
Not great but well beyond LoS unless you’re in an aircraft.
Click to expand...
Still need radar contact to tell the Harpoons where to go. And shipboard radars don't have more than about 50nmi range.

Yes, if they have a datalink you can take advantage of more range.
 
One would be excused for being more than a trifle skeptical about that assertion...
 
Scott Kenny said:
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.
Click to expand...

How many times are you near a FAC that could not be handles numerous other ways? And how much of a magazine extension is 8 missiles? There’s no point in yanking the launchers but they are barely a tertiary armament. I’d certainly trade them for a JAGM battery. Far more useful. The USN is already talking about using them against UAVs and cruise missile. That would truly extend magazines in a meaningful way.
 
Last edited:
Grey Havoc said:
One would be excused for being more than a trifle skeptical about that assertion...
Click to expand...

Well the biggest difference is that the USN actually *wants* the upgrades and to put the ships into service. I suspect one failure of the cruiser program is that the USN never considered it a priority; it was congressionally mandated and there was no choice in the matter. IMO, Congress should not force the services hand with such micro management.
 
Josh_TN said:
Well the biggest difference is that the USN actually *wants* the upgrades and to put the ships into service. I suspect one failure of the cruiser program is that the USN never considered it a priority; it was congressionally mandated and there was no choice in the matter. IMO, Congress should not force the services hand with such micro management.
Click to expand...
They do it because then they can tell constituents they saved/brought jobs to them.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
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.
Click to expand...

My memory was that the launchers sat on a bridge or platform because there wasn't enough space on the deck, but maybe also to ensure that there was direct access to the strike down hatch. But as I say, it's a 20+ year old memory. I used to have a copy of the plan but I haven't seen it in a while.
 
I was always surprised the Flt3s were not configured as SAM bosses.
 
Josh_TN said:
But they are using a 2A without that change anyway.
Click to expand...

Very improvised, it sounds like. And the real question, IMO, is where those folks are bunking, because there aren't a lot of spare racks to be had.
 
TomS said:
Very improvised, it sounds like. And the real question, IMO, is where those folks are bunking, because there aren't a lot of spare racks to be had.
Click to expand...
Lots of room in these:

USS_Zumwalt_(DDG_1000).jpg
 
The CBO 2020 report on FFG(X) quoted the tonnage figures on Navy surface combatants from Spruance and as astounding as it seems Zumwalt though 15,700t LT and 60% larger in FL displacement than Burke Flt III its deadweight/payload, the difference between FLD and Lightweight, exactly the same to the ton as the Burke at 2,117 LT. No doubt the Zumwalt lack of deadweight/payload for its very large displacement reflecting the tumblehome hull design and the large ballast tanks required to prevent it sinking in storms etc.
 
TomS said:
Very improvised, it sounds like. And the real question, IMO, is where those folks are bunking, because there aren't a lot of spare racks to be had.
Click to expand...

The ships captain doesn't need his larger and more luxurious port cabin when the ship is underway. As we all know, a certain captain shouldn't have been caught sleeping in his port cabin after his destroyer hit a containership. So there's always an accommodation for an Admiral aboard a Burke class.

As far as the Admiral's staff, I suspect that many destroyers are going to sea without their full authorized compliments due to recruitment shortfalls, so there's plenty of racks available.
 
TinWing said:
The ships captain doesn't need his larger and more luxurious port cabin when the ship is underway. As we all know, a certain captain shouldn't have been caught sleeping in his port cabin after his destroyer hit a containership.
Click to expand...
It was 0200 local time when that happened.
 
Scott Kenny said:
It was 0200 local time when that happened.
Click to expand...
The point was that the captain wasn't supposed to be down bellow in his port cabin when the destroyer wasn't in port. He should have been in his much smaller sea cabin which is adjacent to the bridge. I'd argue that captains port cabins should be reserved for Admirals top hamper in general. Keep the ships commander in his sea cabin at all times.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom