Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook

The US hasn't built a proper cruiser since Long Beach. The Ticos were laid down a DDGs, and they're broadly interchangeable with the Arleigh Burkes. The fact that DDG(X) was originally referred to a Large Surface Combatant should tell you that the US Navy does not meaningfully view them as separate types anymore (not that they were to begin with).
The only operational difference was that Ticos had AAW Flag space and Burkes didn't.

And the "Japanese Burkes", the Kongo-class, do have that space. Not that Kongos are a Burke hull, they're 20ft longer and 2ft wider, plus draw 11ft less water. They're a modified Burke deckhouse, that's about all they really share with a Burke.
 
The US hasn't built a proper cruiser since Long Beach. The Ticos were laid down a DDGs, and they're broadly interchangeable with the Arleigh Burkes. The fact that DDG(X) was originally referred to a Large Surface Combatant should tell you that the US Navy does not meaningfully view them as separate types anymore (not that they were to begin with).
Bring back the DLG!
 
The only operational difference was that Ticos had AAW Flag space and Burkes didn't.

And the "Japanese Burkes", the Kongo-class, do have that space. Not that Kongos are a Burke hull, they're 20ft longer and 2ft wider, plus draw 11ft less water. They're a modified Burke deckhouse, that's about all they really share with a Burke.

I'd look real closely at what her those two drafts are comparing the same things. One of them include the bow dome and one not, for example?
 
I'd look real closely at what her those two drafts are comparing the same things. One of them include the bow dome and one not, for example?
The Kongos do have a bow mounted sonar, the OQS-102. But it may be a conformal array instead of a big dome.
 
A giant oil tanker converted could hold a thousand or two hypersonic missiles, even D5s.

:D
 

Attachments

  • A83FD62F-578E-4676-8462-623F8496D30C.jpeg
    A83FD62F-578E-4676-8462-623F8496D30C.jpeg
    132.7 KB · Views: 14
Bring back the DLG!
This is unironically my take.

DDGs should be high-end, blue-water combatants that lack dedicated flag facilities

DLGs should be high-end, blue-water combatants that have dedicated flag facilities

CGs should be ships that are exponentially more capable than other vessels of the same generation.

Older Burkes would be DDGs, Flight III Burkes, Zumwalts, and Ticos would be DLGs, and Long Beach, the Strike Cruisers, and CG(X) would be cruisers.
 
This is unironically my take.
I would add additional range as a DLG feature as well, not just flag space. Leahy's had 8,000nmi, Ticonderoga/Kidd's have 6,000nmi, and Burkes have 4,400nmi...
DLGs should have the long legs, and speed, necessary to keep up with the Carrier when a "911" call comes down from the top.
 
Training complete and families waved goodbye to one more time, and now Duncan is back in the eastern Mediterranean: this time working with US Amphibious Squadron 4. This is centred on the USS Wasp, a big deck amphibious assault ship – a vessel that in most navies would be regarded as an aircraft carrier. There are also two more conventional assault ships, the amphibious transport dock USS New York and dock landing ship Oak Hill. These three vessels have aboard the 2,200 Marines of the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit and their amazing panoply of equipment – jump jets, tiltrotors, hovercraft, swimming armour, helicopters and much else besides. The group has supply ship USNS Patuxent in close support as well.

Already this deployment raises three points to note.

First, what Duncan is doing now is core tasking for a destroyer. She has embarked US helicopters, hosted VIP visitors and beaten off exercise ‘attacks’ from the Wasp’s Harrier jets, all the while providing essential layers of protection against real threats on and above the waves. She is also on hand to provide missile defence for our base in Cyprus if needed. It is this sort of layered defence that has kept our warships safe in the missile environment in the Red Sea. When those layers are penetrated, as they have been in the case of some transiting merchant vessels, or absent – as they are in Russia’s Black Sea Fleet – then that is when the strikes happen. Even as the Ministry of Defence initiates a Defence Review with Nato tasking at its core, HMS Duncan is there defending the troops and ships of our Nato ally, the USA.

Second, it is interesting that American Amphibious Ready Groups (ARGs) like the one Duncan is protecting don’t usually have dedicated escort warships of their own. Twenty years ago this would have been unthinkable but there is an increasing trend with US ARGs (and our own LRGs) to operate without accompanying destroyers or frigates. The brochure says this improves “flexibility, rapid response capabilities, and adaptability to evolving maritime threats”. The reality is largely that the US Navy, like ours, doesn’t have enough escort warships to go around. This is unfortunate as the ships of Amphibious Squadron 4 have only close-in, last-ditch air defence weapons. Most of the 24th MEU also offers no capability for fighting at sea – the main exception to this being the six Marine Harriers aboard the Wasp, which can act as effective air defence fighters (though without proper radar direction) or mount anti-ship attacks. The presence of Duncan with her dedicated group air defence Sea Viper missile system makes the ARG enormously safer.

Third is the Houthi-sized elephant in the room. This problem has not gone away at all. The rate of missile and drone attacks has remained steady in the last few weeks but the rate of attacks using Uncrewed Surface Vessels is increasing and given that these weapons hit on the waterline, this is a problem. We’ve also just seen the total abandonment of the Sevastopol naval base by Russia’s Black Sea Fleet in response to Ukraine’s devastating use of similar weapons. Back in the Red Sea we also saw two ships attacked off Hudeydah using surface drones. These were less successful than their Ukrainian equivalents, thankfully, but the sooner the USS Theodore Roosevelt can get there and start knocking these things out from the air, the better. She might even arrive today.

Meanwhile, Duncan’s people will be wanting to detach from the US group in the Med and get amongst it in the Red Sea. What Duncan is doing now is excellent and important but 1800 miles south there is a war going on (which we are losing) and the ship’s company will be itching to get stuck in. This isn’t a blood thirst, more that the opportunities to do what you have spent your life training for in a very high-threat environment are rare and you want to take them. Also, and you won’t find this in any official statement, they will be damned if they are going to let their sister ship HMS Diamond hog the bragging rights and be the only ship with kill markings painted on her bridge.
 
Just a thought, but you could reclaim a lot of the Burkes' space and weight margins with a shortened G-VLS. Might be worth looking into.
 
Just a thought, but you could reclaim a lot of the Burkes' space and weight margins with a shortened G-VLS. Might be worth looking into.
Pretty sure all the long range weapons use the Strike length cells. SM3, SM6, Tomahawks, maybe even the VL-ASROCs.

And it's definitely not worth giving up SM3/6 or VL-ASROCs.
 
Just a thought, but you could reclaim a lot of the Burkes' space and weight margins with a shortened G-VLS. Might be worth looking into.

I'm not sure what you are suggesting. G-VLS is designed to be larger than the existing Mk41 in terms of both depth and diameter (I suspect it's basically Mk 57 size). Even shortened back down to the current Strike-length depth, it will end up holding fewer missiles in a given volume than Mk 41. It might be lighter but you'd end up losing magazine capacity.
 
I'm not sure what you are suggesting.
I’m suggesting the Burke’s’ Mk41s be ripped out in favor of a shorter, strike-length size G-VLS. The full size installation is supposedly able to handle hypersonics. I’m taking that to mean CPS, but that doesn’t really matter here, not enough ship to work with.

it will end up holding fewer missiles in a given volume than Mk 41.
This is not true. The following is an excerpt from the initial press release via Naval News:

“But as part of being able to do a larger diameter missile, you could say take an eight-cell Mk.41 out, put what would be a four-cell with an exhaust on it. But those four cells would be able to handle quad packs of traditional missile canister-sized, or potentially larger missiles that will be coming in the future. So that’s part of one of the things we’re investing in that will help us maximize what you can do from your loadout perspectives and potentially even increase. Because if you think about it, with a four-cell quad pack that’s sixteen and more than the eight that were originally there, just because we changed the structure.”

You’d be keeping the same size payload (equivalent of 96 Strike Length cells), but doing it in half the space, and presumably half the launcher weight.

Further, this interview talks about there being a “baseline” version of G-VLS being developed for the Burkes. Skip to ~8:30.
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aal4hM2Q7UA&feature=youtu.be
 
Incompetence and corruption.

Sure, but it's more than that.

The industrial base has withered to the point we just don't have what is needed to build more ships, more faster no matter how much money we thow at it.

Part of it is trained workers, part of it facilities and some of it is suppliers.

It's going to take consistent spend over time to rebuild that.

On the worker side, that is older seasoned workers retiring and not enough youngster wanting to do that kind of work.

Plenty of people saw this coming years ago, but it's only recently got the attention it deserves.
 
Last edited:
Bad idea. You go to shorter cells there goes your ability to fire Tomahawk.
Uh, no. Can you read? The base G-VLS is presumably large enough to house a CPS. Shorten that to Strike Length (~25 feet). You can fire the exact same missiles, in the exact same configuration, that a Burke can.
 
I’m suggesting the Burke’s’ Mk41s be ripped out in favor of a shorter, strike-length size G-VLS. The full size installation is supposedly able to handle hypersonics. I’m taking that to mean CPS, but that doesn’t really matter here, not enough ship to work with.


This is not true. The following is an excerpt from the initial press release via Naval News:

“But as part of being able to do a larger diameter missile, you could say take an eight-cell Mk.41 out, put what would be a four-cell with an exhaust on it. But those four cells would be able to handle quad packs of traditional missile canister-sized, or potentially larger missiles that will be coming in the future. So that’s part of one of the things we’re investing in that will help us maximize what you can do from your loadout perspectives and potentially even increase. Because if you think about it, with a four-cell quad pack that’s sixteen and more than the eight that were originally there, just because we changed the structure.”

You’d be keeping the same size payload (equivalent of 96 Strike Length cells), but doing it in half the space, and presumably half the launcher weight.

Further, this interview talks about there being a “baseline” version of G-VLS being developed for the Burkes. Skip to ~8:30.
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aal4hM2Q7UA&feature=youtu.be

I remember those comments, and I think the math simply cannot work.

A Mk 41 module is 134 inches x 100 inches. Looked at very simplistically, yes, that means a 4x4 block of 25-inch Mk 41 canisters can fit. But not with any clearance at all around the cells inside module, and quite likely without enough exhaust uptake area to handle hot-fire missiles. I don't see how they plan to overcome that.

For a real-world comparison, a Korean KVLS-II module is just a hair smaller than Mk 41 at 118 inches x 95 inches (3m x 2.4m). It has four cells, but each one is only ~50% wider than Mk 41 (35.4 inches/0.9 m), not the 100% wider that would be needed to quadpack Mk 41 canisters (25 inches/0.64m).

So unless G-VLS is built like a TARDIS, there's no real way to fit 16 missiles in the same area as 8.
 
I remember those comments, and I think the math simply cannot work.
It could if it uses its own cell design and not just 4 mk.41 cells (as i understand). Given that for 4 SM-6's we only need an 42 inch square tought for Safe measure and internal Walls we go up to 44 Inch square or 4 22×22 Inch squares. Mk.41 has only 2,06 Inch walls tought thinner ones should also be possible. But when we add them we get an 48,12×48,12 G-Cell. Small enough to fit 4 into the VLS and have an exhaust system with an 37,75×100 in space. Well if my math is right.
 
I remember those comments, and I think the math simply cannot work.
I agree, it is strange, and I haven’t been able to recreate it. But, I also don’t think a Lockheed Martin executive would give an interview where they flat-out lie about a new product. Maybe they'd say something with a giant asterisk attached too it, but this seems pretty clear-cut. They did something, but how they did it, I’m not sure.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom