Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook

[Josh_TN]

The USN is deciding to retire them because they are high maintenance and have a high upgrade cost. Congress has previously made moves to block retirement, but I don't think the administration has weighted in one way or another. I for one I'm willing to take the USN at its word on the matter. If nothing else, it seems to me the only theater where these are needed is the WestPac and that the surviving units could be focused there until more Burke III are online.

 

[Josh_TN]

I am intrigued to see what is done fitted VPMs to the DDG 1000s for hypersonic missiles. Will the design solution be suitable to incorporate into DDGs and FFGs as well?

Definitely not. The CPS missiles are too long; the launch tubes would require another deck's worth of penetration compared to the Mk41s.

 

[TomS]

I am intrigued to see what is done fitted VPMs to the DDG 1000s for hypersonic missiles. Will the design solution be suitable to incorporate into DDGs and FFGs as well?

No chance of it in FFG-62; as Josh says, it's far too deep to fit in Mk 41 space and the FFG design doesn't have that much extra volume. I think there is a possibility that the Destroyer Payload Module in the DDG(X) concept might accommodate a similar size launcher, but that's far from settled at this point.

 

[Josh_TN]

I am intrigued to see what is done fitted VPMs to the DDG 1000s for hypersonic missiles. Will the design solution be suitable to incorporate into DDGs and FFGs as well?

No chance of it in FFG-62; as Josh says, it's far too deep to fit in Mk 41 space and the FFG design doesn't have that much extra volume. I think there is a possibility that the Destroyer Payload Module in the DDG(X) concept might accommodate a similar size launcher, but that's far from settled at this point.

I believe the DDG(X) is specifically being proposed with room reserved for CPS, but the Burkes definitely cannot.

 

[TomS]

I believe the DDG(X) is specifically being proposed with room reserved for CPS, but the Burkes definitely cannot.

Agreed.

Only option even remotely possible would be to pull the 5-inch gun and drop one VPM in its place all the way down to the bilges (possibly with a raised deckhouse around the top of the tube). And I think there are spaces around the hoist from the lower magazine to the handling room below the turret that would need to be relocated. Lots of work for very little return.

 

[Volkodav]

Would there be sufficient depth in the aft VLS space on a Flight IIA or Flight III Burke? Probably not.

What i was thinking about to be honest was the RAN Hunter Class and the possibility of using the volume aft of the funnels where the multi mission deck is, the issue then would be top weight and stability, but they are already being redesigned with a new hull form to incorporate increase volume required low in the hull for various systems, an increase in length for a pair of VPMs could further increase volume without being detrimental to stability.

 

[Firefinder]

Hmm..


I wonder if you could make an modernized Armor Box Launcher for the Hypersonics to put on the Burkes...

Or set if up in Harpoon type tubes...

 

[Josh_TN]

It's a 16,000 lbs / 7400kg missile, so I think deployment options would be extremely limited.

 

[TomS]

Would there be sufficient depth in the aft VLS space on a Flight IIA or Flight III Burke? Probably not.

Definitely not. The aft VLS sits right above the shaft alleys.

 

[Moose]

Hmm..


I wonder if you could make an modernized Armor Box Launcher for the Hypersonics to put on the Burkes...

Or set if up in Harpoon type tubes...

A deck canister for this would be very large, there's no deck space on a DDG-51 that could accomodate a useful number without serious challenges.

 

[TomS]

Hmm..


I wonder if you could make an modernized Armor Box Launcher for the Hypersonics to put on the Burkes...

Or set if up in Harpoon type tubes...

A deck canister for this would be very large, there's no deck space on a DDG-51 that could accomodate a useful number without serious challenges.

The Army's LRHW TEL is probably around 30 tons loaded with two missiles (each canister is ~9 tons). You could park one on the flight deck, I suppose. Is two a useful number?

 

[sferrin]

A shame the USN can't be bothered to go with the most obvious solution:

 

[sferrin]

Hmm..


I wonder if you could make an modernized Armor Box Launcher for the Hypersonics to put on the Burkes...

Or set if up in Harpoon type tubes...

A deck canister for this would be very large, there's no deck space on a DDG-51 that could accomodate a useful number without serious challenges.

The Army's LRHW TEL is probably around 30 tons loaded with two missiles (each canister is ~9 tons). You could park one on the flight deck, I suppose. Is two a useful number?

And we could secure them with duct tape. Would be par for the course these days.

 

[Josh_TN]

Hmm..


I wonder if you could make an modernized Armor Box Launcher for the Hypersonics to put on the Burkes...

Or set if up in Harpoon type tubes...

A deck canister for this would be very large, there's no deck space on a DDG-51 that could accomodate a useful number without serious challenges.

The Army's LRHW TEL is probably around 30 tons loaded with two missiles (each canister is ~9 tons). You could park one on the flight deck, I suppose. Is two a useful number?

The biggest question would be "why", when the army version is C-17 transportable and has a range of a couple thousand miles.

CPS is possibly going to be backfit to the Zoomies and probably going to be adopted to Flight V Virginias and I think that's it. It is a missile that costs tens of a millions of dollars and I don't see it ever existing in large numbers. Probably dozens to low hundreds.

EDIT: also we may be getting a little ahead of ourselves since it hasn't been end-to-end tested, but it looks like between the Army and Navy there's enough will and money to see it through regardless of testing difficulty.

 

[TomS]

The biggest question would be "why", when the army version is C-17 transportable and has a range of a couple thousand miles.

Of course. I was trying to be funny, but it wasn't very obvious.

 

[TomS]

A shame the USN can't be bothered to go with the most obvious solution:

View attachment 684376

They are doing this. CPS is in fact going on the Zumwalt's, assuming the program continues as currently planned.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Some good news, thought it had been shelved.

 

[sferrin]

A shame the USN can't be bothered to go with the most obvious solution:

View attachment 684376

They are doing this. CPS is in fact going on the Zumwalt's, assuming the program continues as currently planned.

I meant going forward. Hopefully the Tico replacement, if it ever gets built, will be large enough to not have to resort to giant deckhouses to include CPS. (Still sore about them shorting the Zumwalt line and creating a giant CF.)

 

[TomS]

A shame the USN can't be bothered to go with the most obvious solution:

View attachment 684376

They are doing this. CPS is in fact going on the Zumwalt's, assuming the program continues as currently planned.

I meant going forward. Hopefully the Tico replacement, if it ever gets built, will be large enough to not have to resort to giant deckhouses to include CPS. (Still sore about them shorting the Zumwalt line and creating a giant CF.)

Oh, I see. Time will tell. Some of the models we've seen associated with DDG(X) imply they are at least thinking about some aspects of the Zumwalt design.

 

[Firefinder]

A shame the USN can't be bothered to go with the most obvious solution:

View attachment 684376

They are doing this. CPS is in fact going on the Zumwalt's, assuming the program continues as currently planned.

I meant going forward. Hopefully the Tico replacement, if it ever gets built, will be large enough to not have to resort to giant deckhouses to include CPS. (Still sore about them shorting the Zumwalt line and creating a giant CF.)

The blame congress for that.

The Navy will love to tell Ingens to start making Zumwalts but Congress had outright forbidden that cause that means that they were wrong and they cant have that.

And cant just switch a few things, Radars, CPS, Gun, and call it a new a class cause that runs afoul of the need to give all the yards a fair chance to make government money laws so needs to be a competition laws .

Eitherway still be like 5 years till they start building even if they could full copy the design due to Ingens needing to redo the yard to build the hull...

Again.

And does Lockmart even still offer the Mk57 vls? Cause that be a major redesign needed if they dont...

 

[TomS]

And does Lockmart even still offer the Mk57 vls? Cause that be a major redesign needed if they dont...

Was Mk 57 ever LM's? I see brochures with Raytheon and BAE on them, but not LM. BAE published a new brochure for it last year, so probably still available on request.

 

[donnage99]

The blame congress for that.

The Navy will love to tell Ingens to start making Zumwalts but Congress had outright forbidden that cause that means that they were wrong and they cant have that.

Based on what evidence did you arrive at the conclusion that navy wanted zumwalt but congress held them hostage?

 

[aonestudio]

US Navy has tested VLS reloading from an offshore support vessel platform for first time

U.S. Navy is scheduled to demonstrate re-arming the VLS aboard Arleigh Burke-class destroyer USS Spruance.

www.navyrecognition.com

 

[sferrin]

I'd assumed they could already do that. I knew they'd removed the VLS integral cranes but I'd assumed they could at least reload from supply ships. They've been doing that with SLBMs since the 60s.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Nope, they abandoned in the 1990s all attempts at providing a reloading at sea capability for USN VLS ships as too difficult and expensive, and anyhow totally unnecessary in the new age of enteral peace. [sarc]

 

[Moose]

I'd assumed they could already do that. I knew they'd removed the VLS integral cranes but I'd assumed they could at least reload from supply ships. They've been doing that with SLBMs since the 60s.

They can and do reload from tenders, this isn't a demonstration about the act of reloading it's a demonstration of reloading from this particular type of vessel.

 

[Grey Havoc]

The USN haven't reloaded VLS ships at sea or indeed outside of ports and such since the late 1990s at least, so far as I am aware.

 

[totallyaverage]

Nope, they abandoned in the 1990s all attempts at providing a reloading at sea capability for USN VLS ships as too difficult and expensive, and anyhow totally unnecessary in the new age of enteral peace. [sarc]

They abandoned it because it was extremely dangerous to perform at anything more than a glassy calm. Not only due to the possibility of a wayward canister striking crew or the ship, but also there was the possibility of damaging the weapon. Reloading at sea sounds like a wonderful idea until you crack a motor casing.

In practice, it wasn't a lost capability for the USN because the Mk13 and 26 launchers that the Mk 41 was replacing couldn't reload at sea either.

 

[Forest Green]

France's New FREMM DA Alsace Proved its Worth on First Deployment - Naval News

The French Navy's Carrier Strike Group (CSG) mission "Clemenceau 2022" saw the first operational deployment of the new Air Defense FREMM (FREMM DA) Alsace.

www.navalnews.com

 

[Kat Tsun]

Nope, they abandoned in the 1990s all attempts at providing a reloading at sea capability for USN VLS ships as too difficult and expensive, and anyhow totally unnecessary in the new age of enteral peace. [sarc]

They abandoned it because it was extremely dangerous to perform at anything more than a glassy calm. Not only due to the possibility of a wayward canister striking crew or the ship, but also there was the possibility of damaging the weapon. Reloading at sea sounds like a wonderful idea until you crack a motor casing.

In practice, it wasn't a lost capability for the USN because the Mk13 and 26 launchers that the Mk 41 was replacing couldn't reload at sea either.

Then reload/rearm it in a bay? It's hardly rocket science, that's something the US did in WW2 as well.

It will still be useful to have a few combat cargo ships/maritime prepositioning ships loaded with wooden rounds, at least when the ports and warehouses necessary for this job have been destroyed by strategic bombardment, simply because there's more small bays and calm lagoons than military harbors in the world.

Even if they aren't destroyed, having a transit time of two or three days to some random island shoal beats a week back to Guam or a fortnight to Hawaii. Most of the reasoning for the reload at sea comes from the need to have more ammo in the theater (SCS) than the USN has VLS cells, either now or in the future.

It's a completely lost capability, and one that needs to be regained, because the USN isn't getting more big ships in the medium to long term future.

 

[bobbymike]

Euronaval 2022: DSIT showcases torpedo defence system designed for surface vessels | Shephard

DSIT showcases torpedo defence system designed for surface vessels.

www.shephardmedia.com

 

[jsport]

The Navy Needs a Sea Change in Ship Design

Ship design for surface combatants has been largely unchanged for 150 years. The modern era demands a sea change.

www.usni.org

 

[Moose]

The Navy Needs a Sea Change in Ship Design

Ship design for surface combatants has been largely unchanged for 150 years. The modern era demands a sea change.

www.usni.org

This article leads me to my next point: Kids, don't do drugs.

 

[Hood]

Yes well... all cool stuff, history is littered with "cool" super high-tech designs, I'm sure Popular Mechanics of 1930 thought by 2030 we'd be sailing in hyper Bel Geddes streamlined battleships with hextuple 50in gunned turrets and the editors of 1980 probably thought we'd be sailing fleets of submersible SES craft with 300x VLS siloes on them by now. Real life sucks.

Warships have been long-thin monohulls since man started duking it out on water, even as far back as the trireme. Arguably its just the way to build a vessel that's stable and quick without undue excess power requirements.

 

[jsport]

We should be talking at least semi-submersibles which could transition to SES, yes.

.. there are waves of USN bureaucrats which waste their whole working life-career doing little more than enjoying local bay seafood.

Railguns need as much work as a Strategic Long Range Cannon, a Manhattan Project like cost/schedule no one will contemplate, but would be a great ship asset.

The fact that VLS require in-port, in calm water reloading is a stunning shortfall which needs refinement before someone else does. ...have to believe this is a cost issue not so much engineering. ..cant imagine how one survives as the 'porupine' w/o a quicker reload.

 

[Firefinder]

Railguns need as much work as a Strategic Long Range Cannon, a Manhattan Project like cost/schedule no one will contemplate, but would be a great ship asset

Need to point out that tge Army still funding its railgun and last I heard has gotten up to 500 full power shots.

Which is up there with tank guns firing APDSF warshots. Or ww2 5 inch guns.

So railguns are ready for prime time if you decide to drop power, increasing barrellife, in peacetime or stockpile barrels like a hoarder. Like 3 per gun per ship.

We just need a ship to power the damn thing.

Of which only the Zumwalts have tge output of the mainline combat vessels out there. Hopefully the DDGx be able to do it if that thing does suffer like the Zumwalts did...

 

[jsport]

Railguns need as much work as a Strategic Long Range Cannon, a Manhattan Project like cost/schedule no one will contemplate, but would be a great ship asset

Need to point out that tge Army still funding its railgun and last I heard has gotten up to 500 full power shots.

Which is up there with tank guns firing APDSF warshots. Or ww2 5 inch guns.

So railguns are ready for prime time if you decide to drop power, increasing barrellife, in peacetime or stockpile barrels like a hoarder. Like 3 per gun per ship.

We just need a ship to power the damn thing.

Of which only the Zumwalts have tge output of the mainline combat vessels out there. Hopefully the DDGx be able to do it if that thing does suffer like the Zumwalts did...

Has the discharge from this very low diameter gun stop bending the barrel and could that ever compete w/ a large diameter warhead SCRAM rd from a SLRC?

 

[Firefinder]

Railguns need as much work as a Strategic Long Range Cannon, a Manhattan Project like cost/schedule no one will contemplate, but would be a great ship asset

Need to point out that tge Army still funding its railgun and last I heard has gotten up to 500 full power shots.

Which is up there with tank guns firing APDSF warshots. Or ww2 5 inch guns.

So railguns are ready for prime time if you decide to drop power, increasing barrellife, in peacetime or stockpile barrels like a hoarder. Like 3 per gun per ship.

We just need a ship to power the damn thing.

Of which only the Zumwalts have tge output of the mainline combat vessels out there. Hopefully the DDGx be able to do it if that thing does suffer like the Zumwalts did...

Has the discharge from this very low diameter gun stop bending the barrel and could that ever compete w/ a large diameter warhead SCRAM rd from a SLRC?

Barrel bend has stopped being a issue since the late 90s and its very scale up able.

So long as you have the power.

But its not envision to do the SLRC, which sadly been canceled, job. Its ment for low collateral pin point hits and smacking down hypersonics.

 

[jsport]

Railguns need as much work as a Strategic Long Range Cannon, a Manhattan Project like cost/schedule no one will contemplate, but would be a great ship asset

Need to point out that tge Army still funding its railgun and last I heard has gotten up to 500 full power shots.

Which is up there with tank guns firing APDSF warshots. Or ww2 5 inch guns.

So railguns are ready for prime time if you decide to drop power, increasing barrellife, in peacetime or stockpile barrels like a hoarder. Like 3 per gun per ship.

We just need a ship to power the damn thing.

Of which only the Zumwalts have tge output of the mainline combat vessels out there. Hopefully the DDGx be able to do it if that thing does suffer like the Zumwalts did...

Has the discharge from this very low diameter gun stop bending the barrel and could that ever compete w/ a large diameter warhead SCRAM rd from a SLRC?

Barrel bend has stopped being a issue since the late 90s and its very scale up able.

So long as you have the power.

But its not envision to do the SLRC, which sadly been canceled, job. Its ment for low collateral pin point hits and smacking down hypersonics.

recall one of the reasons the USN nixed the rail recently was barrel bend from heat. some mix of chemical and electric and rocket would be the best.

 

[Tuna]

The fact that VLS require in-port, in calm water reloading is a stunning shortfall which needs refinement before someone else does. ...have to believe this is a cost issue not so much engineering. ..cant imagine how one survives as the 'porupine' w/o a quicker reload.

This is much less of an issue than it sounds like.

The amount of weapons the Navy has is roughly of the same magnitude as the amount of VLS cells they have, and that is probably more than what they'd need to fight any serious naval war. Underway replenishment is not a requirement for fighting a major war, because before you'd need to do it, you have either already won or lost all your ships. This is just the same calculus that said that you don't ever need more than 4 AShMs in any realistic situation against a peer opponent. Either you have sufficient numbers that you'll have taken out everything after firing 4 missiles, or the enemy has sufficient numbers that you get sunk before you get to fire more than 4 times. The Navy doubled that and made the requirement 8 just to be sure.

... It would have been useful for bombarding people in mud huts, though.