The Ship Model Forum

Hello everyone,

I have a question that has been on my mind for quite some time, so I decided to give it a try and ask it here:

Which would you say was more capale class of USN ships - Arleigh Burke (flight IIA) or Ticos?

Several internet sites quote US Nave sources claiming that Burkes are considered "the most capable and survivable surface combatants ever put to the sea".

There is a 10-year gap between the first AB and the first Tico. Burkes are stealthier, faster, probably more manouverable and built mainly of steel.
Ticos are bigger and better armed. Also, I've read somewhere that Burkes' AEGIS capability is only about 75% of Ticos corresponding capability.

Also, is it possible to reinstate Harpoon canisters on later Burkes? Between stacks?

In today's world - which would you say was better? I think it is a fair question as both have multi-purpose and similar capabilities.

Thanks for your input!

I served on both classes of ships. USS Chosen and USS Paul Hamilton. They really are both equal. The Burke would take a and survive a hit better. The Burkes are not as top heavy as the Tico class is and the all metal is said to be better. That's opinion.

Thanks for your reply! That is what I think too - looks like the whole cruiser / destroyer nomenclature is just a question of semantics. Otherwise, each class could serve as a replacement for the other. I like Burkes' sleek design more but I was just wondering about pure combat-oriented capabilities comparison between them and Ticos.

One important part is the Tico is set-up for Flag staffs. So the Comms are a little more robust and CIC is built to handle Staff. Also, Ticos are Commanded by Captains O-6s. Burkes are Commanded by Commanders O-5s

Thanks again! So, there's rank difference between COs.
Isn't the Burke class like a economical version of Ticonderoga?
I think not since most sources suggest that there have been a few improvements over the Tico. And you seem to support it with what you have written.

No the Burke is not an economical version. The Design of the Burke class was from the ground up. The improvements have been with the Aegis system. The Tico class get the upgrades too.

I guess my English wasn't precise enough. What I meant was - isn't the Burke class like a cheaper alternative to Ticonderogas.
Sort of like Virginia class is to Seawolf - older, bigger and better armed boat replaced by something smaller and cheaper with potential to ultimately become more capable.
I realise that it is a completely new design.

The deal between the Ticonderoga class and the Arleigh Burke Flight IIA class is this:

1. Flight I and Flight II Arleigh Burkes have no helecoptors embarked which makes them clearly inferior in that area.
2. Flight IIA Arleigh Burkes have full helecoptor facilities as do the Ticonderogas.
3. The Arleigh Burke class unlike the Ticonderogas have a low observable design that reduces their radar footprint making it harder for missiles to locate and lock on to them.
4. The Ticonderoga class currently uses the SPY-1B radar system. It is a larger version of the SPY-1D used on the Arleigh Burke class. At this point in time they are of similar capability. The Ticonderoga class, however, has the SPS-49(V) long range 2D air search radar. This gives the Ticos a greater capability to detect threats at long range than the Arleigh Burke class.
5. The Arleigh Burke class is constructed out of steel everywhere except for the funnels. The Ticonderoga class has a steel hull and frames but is largely aluminum otherwise. This results in the Arleigh Burkes being better able to withstand dammage than the Ticonderogas.
6. The Ticonderoga class has 122 VLS cells compared to 90 on the Arleigh Burke. The advantage in this has been greatly reduced since the end of the Cold War. Without the threat of mass saturation attacks this isn't an advantage anymore. Also, the newly produced Evolved Sea Sparrow, which is controled by Aegis, is packed four to a VLS cell allowing the ships to carry more AAW firepower in fewer cells.

Finally the Harpoon issue: The standard missle is now used as the fast reaction anti-ship missile. With the current rules of engagement Harpoon is a bit problematic. The standard can be recalled more easily, and is harder to defend against. The new warheads for the block III standard missiles will cause more dammage to an enemy vessel than the block II did back in the eighties, also they strike rather than useing a proximity fuse.

_________________
╔═════╗
║ Seasick║
╚═════╝

I wonder if the Flight II Burkes are as topheavy as the Ticonderoga VLS.

The Burkes have smaller missile magazines (96 vs 127 cells). The equipment is slightly inferior to the cruiser's: DDG-51 Class are not equipped with a AN/SPS-49 radar (no secondary air search radar), and must hold an AN/SPY-1 track. Cannot engage on a remote or AN/SPS-49 track unless equipped with CEC (and my beloved Alpha processor). Rumor also has it that the DDG sacrifices high-altitude and ABM functionality for better low-altitude and littoral ("clutter") performance.

_________________
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)

I think you will all find type 45 would solve your question

With all due respect, the 45 Aster missiles carried by Daring don't begin to address the capability of 96 or 127 SM-2/AEgis, let alone the 10,000 kph SM-3 ABM or follow-on SM-6 ERAM, which is now nearing test.

PAAMS is more of a short range/self-defense or medium range (120Km) system, roughly comparable to RIM-162 ESSM. Standard Missile is a theatrewide all aspect defense system.

_________________
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)

The Ticonderoga has the AN/SPQ-9A radar. This radar and the comming AN/SPQ-9B can/have been integrated into the Aegis system to augment low altitude defense in littorials. The AN/SPY-1B on the Ticonderoga class have been upgraded for low altitude defense and littorial conditions. The AN/SPY-1D has been upgraded for greater low altitude capabilities in blue water and littorials.

_________________
╔═════╗
║ Seasick║
╚═════╝

of course you are right type 45 is no more than a pop gun in conparison. But with all respect yow cant quote a "now nearing test" system or i'll have to get my time machine and prove you wrong

i wouldnt dismiss aster 30 totaly over 96 or 127 sm2's, remember they have to hit the target ???

OK just to clear a few things up.
1. Burkes without hangers. Just not as robost. They control helos too and do keep helos overnight or for a few days. Working within a battle group all assets get equel time controling helos. The Burke I was on went from Norfolk to Rosey Roads with a helo detachment on board.
4. SPY-1D same as the SPY-1B. The D was used to state that the SPY radar was on a Burke class. Same radar thats on one deck house thats it. Ticos have split deck houses for the SPY. The differences come into the programs (softeware) used by each class and each ship within a class will have different programs depending on the mission.
6. Evolved Sea Sparrow replaces the Phalanx gun system. Some say its better others say not.

I state these things to pass on information, not to get into a pissing contest. I put into commission a Tico cruiser and a Burke. I was an Operation Specialist. Meaning I worked in CIC and I retired as a Chief.

I know that the flight I and II Arleigh Burkes can control helecoptors. The problem is that there is no hanger. I would imagine that the enviornment on the flight deck isn't the best for maintance of the engines or electronics. All I was saying was that not having a hanger made it inferior to the Ticonderoga class.

_________________
╔═════╗
║ Seasick║
╚═════╝

The SM-2 hits targets all too well, as passengers of Iran Ajr know all too well. Of course, we are all familiar with the record of the SM-3 at shooting down ICBMs in mid-flight tests.

Both systems are "good enough" for the very fussy Japanese Navy.

The SM-6 is a components job which swaps the seeker of the AIM-120 onto the missile body of the SM-2. Therefore, it's not really going to experience the teething problems of a "normal" system.

The real design benefit of SM-2/Ægis was it's ability to counter the saturation attack of supersonic cruise missiles from a regiment of Backfire Bombers. It is still the thing to have if you're on the receiving end of a cruise missile attack.

_________________
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)

You would be hard pressed to find any SAM that could not hit a non-evading Airbus at this range.

The Japanese acquisition of components of missile defense is not indicative of anything other than system has some cutting edge technology the Japanese might like to have, and Japan also sees acquiring it as a means to bind America more closely to their own interests. So long as the effectiveness of the system has not been decisively disproven in public, whether the system actually works is of very little consequence in Japanese considerations.

For technology, the scene is colored by the fact that Japanese military procurement is highly political, bureaucratic, and posturing. The mission of its procurement process is not to create a high level of immediate combat readiness because honestly, all the posturing aside, it doesn't really see significant chance of being required to fight in the foreseeable future. Instead, the mission of its procurement process is to subsidize and expand Japanese military industrial and technological base, and ensuring that it has the opportunity to examines and digests all of latest developments in every field of the military technology. Regardless of whether SM-2 and 3 works, the Japanese wants to make sure they know thoroughly every piece of American technology that went into it, and to make sure that Americans didn't come up with something their own technological base had overlooked. If they mastered all the technology in the Aegis and SM systems, then they would not be dismayed even if there are deep flaws that does not allow the system to function in actual combat.

Binding interests of the US to those of Japan is also another reason for Japanese adoptation of ship and patroit based missile defense. It also has nothing to do with whether the missiles actually works. The Japanese in the long run are nervous about their position in the far east. They are not certain where they are headed if China were to continue to rise at her current rate for several more decades. Japan needs US to give her breathing room in the face of a rapidly strengthening China, and realizes however much US would loath a superpower China, US could in fact accommodate such a China much better then Japan. So Japan must really cling to the US in order to ensure for as long as possible the US does not desert Japan and reach some sort of accommodation with China. Like many other countries the Japanese have also figured out the missile defense is something that tugs at the heart strings of the ruling party and defense establishments in the US. The Japanese wants to be seen as a proactive ally of the US that would be indispensible to the US in counterbalancing China. As in the case of Poland, UK, and Czeck republic, this sort of hidden and menipulative political considerations has much more impact on Japanese decision to acquire missile defense than the actual efficacy of the weapon systems themselves.

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.

Of course none of the motives of the foreign adopters of the missile defence shows the system does not work. But their motives certainly makes it impossible to deduce from their acquisitions that the system actually does work.

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.

The fact that the the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force, Spanish Navy, Royal Norwegian Navy, Republic of Korea Navy. and he Royal Australian Navy have selected Ægis says more than politics is in it's favor. The fact that it has inherent ABM abilities probably motivates some of this.

Chuck, I think even you will admit it is probably a very effective system. Certainly it is at the other end of the development cycle from PAAMS, which is only just now being fielded.

_________________
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)

I think it is probable that the Aegis SM system will remain more effective as a medium to long range fleet SAM system than PAAMS for some time. But I will not argue until I am blue in the face that this absolutely must be so.

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.