DDG(X) - Arleigh Burke Replacement

[Forest Green]

Given the MADCAP research, it's unlikely they'll be losing the gun.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/navy-researching-guided-hypervelocity-rounds-from-standard-deck-guns.24774/post-746428

 

[Cordy]

The Army selected BAE for both the MDACS cannon and the Hypervelocity Projectile (understand a question of Congress funding). The sub-caliber HVP would be common to both the Army 155m cannon and the Navy 127mm gun. The HVP would be a relatively simple projectile compared with the very expensive Raytheon $100+K Excalibur round and for guidance use a high definition FCR, so the FCR would also have to be fitted to the DDG(X) if used.

Army tapping BAE to build prototype airbase defense hypervelocity projectile cannon | InsideDefense.com

The Army has selected BAE Systems to produce a prototype cannon that flips its offensive punch for a defensive role as part of a wider U.S. military project to shield high-value, small-area assets by defeating cruise missile raids with a paradigm-changing capability: hypervelocity projectile...

insidedefense.com

 

[Josh_TN]

FCR?

 

[TomS]

FCR?

Fire-Control Radar.

The last detailed concept for DDG(X) we were shown had SPQ-9B with a upgrade path to Future X-Band Radar (FXR).

 

[Cordy]

Do wonder if X-band radar will have the necessary high definition, a write up of the MDACS radar requirements below, with the previous Army AA 50mm EAPS ARDEC program they used a CW interferometer radar with use of multiple receive antennas to give the necessary angular measurements for centimeter (0.4") tracking accuracy required for guidance of multiple low cost 'simple' projectile.

Army approaches industry for advanced radar able to provide guidance for future hypervelocity weapons

Multifunction Precision Radar (MFPR) would detect hostile threats and help guide the future Multi-Domain Artillery Cannon System (MDACS) projectiles.

www.militaryaerospace.com

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV92Bm63VZY&t=3s

 

[johnpjones1775]

As far as weapon systems my personal opinion would be a single 5”, 2 mk110s, 2 phalanx, 1 SEARAM, 72 regular VLS, 18 PVLS, 2 lasers.

 

[Ozair]

As far as weapon systems my personal opinion would be a single 5”, 2 mk110s, 2 phalanx, 1 SEARAM, 72 regular VLS, 18 PVLS, 2 lasers.

I expect there won't be any more Phalanx installations, it is already being swapped out on DDG-51s with the RAM or SEARAM and I think the future there is the 300KW HELCAP.

Can't see both Mk 45 and Mk110s being on the same vessel either, seems to be one or the other.

 

[that_person]

I’m going to be the contrarian and say I’d prefer 2 Mk110s over a single Mk45. You’re losing the NGFS mission, but gaining a lot of PD.

I see no reason G-VLS or something similar can’t be ready by 2032. I’d do all G-VLS, as Mk41 is just a restraint at this point.

 

[johnpjones1775]

I expect there won't be any more Phalanx installations, it is already being swapped out on DDG-51s with the RAM or SEARAM and I think the future there is the 300KW HELCAP.

Can't see both Mk 45 and Mk110s being on the same vessel either, seems to be one or the other.

I say phalanx as a replacement for mk38.
The SEARAM and mk110s would be the AAW close in defense, with the phalanx being a final last hope if those two fail/are overwhelmed.
As it stands the mk38 is pretty much useless on any USN surface combatant that’s larger than a PC.

Idk where you get the ‘it seems to be one or the other’ thing from. The USN hasn’t worked on a design large enough to justify both since the zumwalts, and they were skipped out on there because the position they’d be in was pretty stupid and silly.

The mk110 is a great option for small craft, drones, and subsonic and low supersonic ASMs. 5” has AAW capabilities, but they’re not great, and I only really include it because we should maintain some NGFS capabilities even if a single 5” per ship is extremely mediocre at best for that job.

 

[Ozair]

I say phalanx as a replacement for mk38.
The SEARAM and mk110s would be the AAW close in defense, with the phalanx being a final last hope if those two fail/are overwhelmed.
As it stands the mk38 is pretty much useless on any USN surface combatant that’s larger than a PC.

Phalanx and Mk38 are very different classes with a Phalanx mount being essentially 5 times the weight. The Mk38 Mod 4 seems to be an effective upgrade that covers the drone and unmanned boat target set very well. Phalanx has been passed by and given the USN is removing it from DDG-51s I don't see a future.

Idk where you get the ‘it seems to be one or the other’ thing from. The USN hasn’t worked on a design large enough to justify both since the zumwalts, and they were skipped out on there because the position they’d be in was pretty stupid and silly.

Let's reverse that. What was the last USN vessel to be equipped with two different guns with different calibers over 40mm?

There are people here way more knowledgeable than me on USN vessels who may know but I can't think of a single vessel not built during the second world war. Hence I see it as a one or the other option, not both but happy to be proven wrong.

The mk110 is a great option for small craft, drones, and subsonic and low supersonic ASMs. 5” has AAW capabilities, but they’re not great, and I only really include it because we should maintain some NGFS capabilities even if a single 5” per ship is extremely mediocre at best for that job.

I don't doubt the capability of the Mk110 but I also see a lot of investment going forward with the Mk45, especially with the HVP. Keep the MK110 on the Constellations and stay the Mk45 on the DDG(X) is my suggestion.

I’m going to be the contrarian and say I’d prefer 2 Mk110s over a single Mk45. You’re losing the NGFS mission, but gaining a lot of PD.

Certainly some merit in that but losing what may come with the HVP from the Mk45 seems like an overall loss.

 

[Josh_TN]

Gun systems are a tertiary capability.

 

[CV12Hornet]

Let's reverse that. What was the last USN vessel to be equipped with two different guns with different calibers over 40mm?

I think it was the Belknaps who were the last missile ships to have a pair of twin 3"/50s as built.

 

[Ozair]

I think it was the Belknaps who were the last missile ships to have a pair of twin 3"/50s as built.

Ha well done! I would agree with you there, the initial configuration had both the 5in and 3in guns before the 3in were removed.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Phalanx and Mk38 are very different classes with a Phalanx mount being essentially 5 times the weight. The Mk38 Mod 4 seems to be an effective upgrade that covers the drone and unmanned boat target set very well. Phalanx has been passed by and given the USN is removing it from DDG-51s I don't see a future.

Let's reverse that. What was the last USN vessel to be equipped with two different guns with different calibers over 40mm?

There are people here way more knowledgeable than me on USN vessels who may know but I can't think of a single vessel not built during the second world war. Hence I see it as a one or the other option, not both but happy to be proven wrong.


I don't doubt the capability of the Mk110 but I also see a lot of investment going forward with the Mk45, especially with the HVP. Keep the MK110 on the Constellations and stay the Mk45 on the DDG(X) is my suggestion.


Certainly some merit in that but losing what may come with the HVP from the Mk45 seems like an overall loss.

I was a mk38 tech and operator. They’re almost completely useless in modern naval combat.
they’re too low ROF and too inaccurate for work against small UAVs, and can only engage a 1 or 2 small suicide craft realistically.
Phalanx might be heavier, but it’s actually useful. However when we’re talking about a ship that’s going to weigh 12k+ tons we’re talking about amounts of weight that are pretty irrelevant.

As for last ship with different major caliber gun systems? A Cold War cruiser off the top of my head I cannot remember exactly but as was posted above the belknap sounds right. However while it’s not USN, the RN are building a ship with 40mm and 57mm guns (seems silly to me with only 17mm difference in size).

Why keep them separate? There’s no reason for that.

Edit
It was the belknap class. As originally built they had a single 5” and a pair of 3”.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Gun systems are a tertiary capability.

Not really, especially not in the modern era.
More like secondary. We really don’t want to be relying missiles that will cost a million dollars or more to stop drones that cost a few thousand-10s of thousands of dollars…

 

[TomS]

I was a mk38 tech and operator. They’re almost completely useless in modern naval combat.
they’re too low ROF and too inaccurate for work against small UAVs, and can only engage a 1 or 2 small suicide craft realistically.
Phalanx might be heavier, but it’s actually useful. However when we’re talking about a ship that’s going to weigh 12k+ tons we’re talking about amounts of weight that are pretty irrelevant.

The newer versions of Mk 38 are better -- they are true remote weapon stations and the Mod 4 even upgrades to a 30mm gun with the option for air-bursting munitions (AHEAD-style). But yes, none of them are in the same class as Phalanx. But Phalanx is definitely on the way out, with RAM replacing it. That's why the published concept design for DDG(X) has two RAM launchers and no Phalanx. I'd expect that to hold true until they can maybe replace RAM with lasers (but that seems to be less imminent than it was a few years ago).

Weight for these kinds of secondary weapons probably isn't the critical constraint on a design as big as DDG(X). But arrangeable deck area and centerline length are going to be issues. That's one advantage of peripheral VLS as in DDG-1000, but there is little sign of that making a comeback for DDG(X).

I will still say that I expect to see a powder deck gun on DDG(X). The number of 5-inch rounds used in the current fracas in the Red Sea makes it clear that there is a role for it, especially if HVP is actually happening. (Plus the shotgun round for small boats and swarming drones). I don't see both 5-inch and 57mm, if only because there just isn't the deck area and below-deck volume for both.

 

[Ozair]

I was a mk38 tech and operator. They’re almost completely useless in modern naval combat.
they’re too low ROF and too inaccurate for work against small UAVs, and can only engage a 1 or 2 small suicide craft realistically.
Phalanx might be heavier, but it’s actually useful. However when we’re talking about a ship that’s going to weigh 12k+ tons we’re talking about amounts of weight that are pretty irrelevant.

Fair enough although I continue to question the usefulness of Phalanx.

As for last ship with different major caliber gun systems? A Cold War cruiser off the top of my head I cannot remember exactly but as was posted above the belknap sounds right. However while it’s not USN, the RN are building a ship with 40mm and 57mm guns (seems silly to me with only 17mm difference in size).

The UK Type 31 has the 57mm and 40mm weapons but interestingly the Type 26, a significantly larger vessel, has gone with the Mk 45 and also away from the traditional British Mk 8. I know the Italians have traditionally been gun heavy on their cruisers and destroyers and also maintain on their GP version both the 5in and 3in.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Gun systems are a tertiary capability.

Not really, especially not in the modern era.
More like secondary. We really don’t want to be relying missiles that will cost a million dollars or more to stop drones that cost a few thousand-10s of thousands of dollars

The newer versions of Mk 38 are better -- they are true remote weapon stations and the Mod 4 even upgrades to a 30mm gun with the option for air-bursting munitions (AHEAD-style). But yes, none of them are in the same class as Phalanx. But Phalanx is definitely on the way out, with RAM replacing it. That's why the published concept design for DDG(X) has two RAM launchers and no Phalanx. I'd expect that to hold true until they can maybe replace RAM with lasers (but that seems to be less imminent than it was a few years ago).

Weight for these kinds of secondary weapons probably isn't the critical constraint on a design as big as DDG(X). But arrangeable deck area and centerline length are going to be issues. That's one advantage of peripheral VLS as in DDG-1000, but there is little sign of that making a comeback for DDG(X).

I will still say that I expect to see a powder deck gun on DDG(X). The number of 5-inch rounds used in the current fracas in the Red Sea makes it clear that there is a role for it, especially if HVP is actually happening. (Plus the shotgun round for small boats and swarming drones). I don't see both 5-inch and 57mm, if only because there just isn't the deck area and below-deck volume for both.

i was mk38 mod2 the only difference between that and the newest version is a 30mm gun instead of 25mm, but even then it’s basically an identical gun just scale up slightly.

Being an RWS doesn’t mean anything. The RWS doesn’t have any software to determine fusing, and the gun has no actual FCS. It’s just a dude with an immobile pair of joy sticks with a d-pad and some buttons with a camera and laser range finder.

The console can lock on to a target based on pixels, but that just follows the target, and the LRF does set elevation/depression, but not particularly well, and it’s still up to the operator to judge lead, and the lock can be broken by the water splash of a few misses in front of a surface target.

There’s enough space for both if they want there to be.

 

[johnpjones1775]

The newer versions of Mk 38 are better -- they are true remote weapon stations and the Mod 4 even upgrades to a 30mm gun with the option for air-bursting munitions (AHEAD-style). But yes, none of them are in the same class as Phalanx. But Phalanx is definitely on the way out, with RAM replacing it. That's why the published concept design for DDG(X) has two RAM launchers and no Phalanx. I'd expect that to hold true until they can maybe replace RAM with lasers (but that seems to be less imminent than it was a few years ago).

Weight for these kinds of secondary weapons probably isn't the critical constraint on a design as big as DDG(X). But arrangeable deck area and centerline length are going to be issues. That's one advantage of peripheral VLS as in DDG-1000, but there is little sign of that making a comeback for DDG(X).

I will still say that I expect to see a powder deck gun on DDG(X). The number of 5-inch rounds used in the current fracas in the Red Sea makes it clear that there is a role for it, especially if HVP is actually happening. (Plus the shotgun round for small boats and swarming drones). I don't see both 5-inch and 57mm, if only because there just isn't the deck area and below-deck volume for both.

Fair enough although I continue to question the usefulness of Phalanx.

The UK Type 31 has the 57mm and 40mm weapons but interestingly the Type 26, a significantly larger vessel, has gone with the Mk 45 and also away from the traditional British Mk 8. I know the Italians have traditionally been gun heavy on their cruisers and destroyers and also maintain on their GP version both the 5in and 3in.

I think the difference in gun armament for the Brits is simply down to role. I think the 31 is an FFG, and as such targeted at lighter weight threats

Thanks for reminding me about the Italians. The horizon class has 2 76s iirc and their FREMMs 2 76s as well for modern examples.

For examples closer in size to ddgx just look at their helicopter cruisers, and I believe the French helo cruiser likewise had multiple gun mounts in 2 or more major calibers.

 

[GTX]

DDG(X) Next-Generation Destroyer's Capabilities And Costs Are Solidifying

The Navy’s head of surface warfare says DDG(X) is a "clean-sheet imperative" that will prioritize electricity production, endurance and advanced weapons.

www.twz.com

 

[TomS]

I think the difference in gun armament for the Brits is simply down to role. I think the 31 is an FFG, and as such targeted at lighter weight threats

Not even an FFG. Think Coast Guard cutter in US terms and you are closer to the mark, IMO. They have some very limited air self defense missiles but the guns are mainly for "junk bashing."

Thanks for reminding me about the Italians. The horizon class has 2 76s iirc and their FREMMs 2 76s as well for modern examples.

For examples closer in size to ddgx just look at their helicopter cruisers, and I believe the French helo cruiser likewise had multiple gun mounts in 2 or more major calibers.

Depends on whether you consider 76mm to be a major caliber gun. The Italians regard it more as a CIWS.

If you are thinking of the French Jean d'Arc, that's literally a 1959 design. Also, primarily a training ship, which put a crimp on some of the more grandiose (read, expensive) proposals.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Not even an FFG. Think Coast Guard cutter in US terms and you are closer to the mark, IMO. They have some very limited air self defense missiles but the guns are mainly for "junk bashing."



Depends on whether you consider 76mm to be a major caliber gun. The Italians regard it more as a CIWS.

If you are thinking of the French Jean d'Arc, that's literally a 1959 design. Also, primarily a training ship, which put a crimp on some of the more grandiose (read, expensive) proposals.

Idk what you mean by ‘think cutter’ considering the legend class cutter is basically just an under armed frigate…

The type31 will have 32 VLS, and is 5700 tons. It’s solidly in the FFG category

Not even an FFG. Think Coast Guard cutter in US terms and you are closer to the mark, IMO. They have some very limited air self defense missiles but the guns are mainly for "junk bashing."



Depends on whether you consider 76mm to be a major caliber gun. The Italians regard it more as a CIWS.

If you are thinking of the French Jean d'Arc, that's literally a 1959 design. Also, primarily a training ship, which put a crimp on some of the more grandiose (read, expensive) proposals.

the other dude said larger than 40mm.

a 76mm gun is undoubtedly a major caliber naval gun.