The Ship Model Forum

Hey, guys!

I am just curiuos what people think about the following concept

The DDG-51 Flight IIIs are on their way. As they are proposed, they are a total waste of effort. So, let's see if we can come up with a better idea. If the DDG-51 Flight III is supposed to be an AAW primary ship, what is your opinion about the following questions?

Operating under the stipulations that AMDR would not be available for this ship, what should the ships' systems be?

- What kind of radar?

- How many missiles should the ship carry (realistically. The ships currently carry 96. Should they go to 128? If so, how)?

- What kind of deck gun (Mk75 76mm super rapidfire, Mk45 Mod 4 5"/62, AGS(L) 155mm/62caliber, Mk71 155mm/60caliber, Mk71 Mod2 8"/60 caliber)? Why did you chose the one you did?

- What kind of CIWS (Phalanx Block 1B, RAM, SeaRAM, Goalkeeper, or combinations of)?

- Internal or external torpedo tubes?

- If someone were to build a model of this ship one day, what kit should they use (1/350 and/or 1/700)?

- What aftermarket parts should they use (Veteran models, WEM, etc)?

- How long should the ship be?

- Should there be internal or external RHIB accommodations?

- Should there be a UUV deck house like those on USS Momsen?

- What kind of protection should the ship have (armor belt; if so how thick and how long, armored deck; if so how thick and how far across the deck)?

The South Koreans have already made their version of the DDG-51 Flight III. Here is there version:





I do not advocate this as a cruiser. A cruiser needs to have radar separation, more missile tubes to address more threats, have better survivability, etc, but I look forward to what people have to say about a DDG-51 Flight III.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

The KDX-III gives a glimpse of what the modified Burke should be. I think the basis for the flight III mods should be a lengthened hull. That hull should ship at least 128 cells (64 fwd, 64 aft) and two primary guns.

1 - Radar: SPY-1 does the job and is developed, I'd stick with that for now. I'd back it up with SPQ-9 and SPS-49 and/or TRS-3D.

2 - Missiles: 128 cells are a minimum needed, keep in mind some of those 128 will be quadpacked ESSM.

3 - Guns: Today, I'm still on the Oto Melara 127mm/64 kick (I love the ability to select between ready mags, and the rate of fire), so I'd like to see two of them. In the case of the KDX III, I'd put in a second mount even if it cost the additional VLS aft. Guns have been used repeatedly across especially the last few years of naval engagement, and our reduction of their numbers in the fleet is inexcusable. In my opinion, AGS-L has too few rounds to be significant at this point - 180 does not cut it (this is a volume limited magazine, not a weight limited magazine). If the capacity can be increased, as well as the rate of fire, etc...etc... 203mm/60 based on the Mk71 would be much better (higher capacity magazine, higher rate of fire), but the weight and space needed for the mount are a concern for an aft mounting. Vulcano ammunition in 8"; hmm....

As a task force escort, the 127mm may be all that is needed - you would expect a different vessel to take the gunline if this ships primary is task force AAW. That may allow for additional cells.

4 - CIWS: I love the independence of Phalanx as a stand-alone system, but it does not prevent fragmentation damage from its victims. My first thought is RAM in the current CIWS positions and four Millennium guns (F/P/S/A) so that three will fire on most bearings - for anti-missile and swarm defense.

5 - Internal Torpedo Tubes


Here is an illustration of a concept I like as a base for DDG-51 Flt III:

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/attach ... ruiser.gif

Thread it comes from:
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/naval- ... uiser.html

Note this is 3 years ago.

I think one thing that is essential is that the gun be upgraded to a gun that is actually effective in the NSFS and ASuW role. That means the AGS(L) modified to fire existing USMC and US Army 155mm rounds (if that cannot be done), building the 155mm Mk71 Mod X gun, or going to the existing 8"/60caliber gun Mk71 ModX (Mod2) naval gun. Anyway we go about it, the hull would have to be lengthened to accommodate a full 3-deck gun magazine.

While it seems intuitive that we should not send a super sophisticated ship into a NGFS role, it will wind up happening. The Flight IIIs will indeed be involved in NGFS. If they're within 100nm of an enemy force, they will be able to engage targets with the 8" gun 100nm range.

For 21 years the Navy has neglected to put a deck gun aboatd our new-build combatants that can effectively perform the NSFS/ASuW missions. The most important thing is to correct that error with this new class of ship. This means to utilize the AGS(L), the Mk71 155mm/60caliber, or Mk71 8"/60caliber naval guns. In order for this to occur, a foot print inside the hull must be large enough to accommodate an adequately sized magazine. I equate this to be the 500 rounds accommodated aboard the Spruance-class DDs.



As we see here, when the Mk71 was engineered into the DDG-51 design, it was restricted to 1 deck of magazine.


The sonar control room can be consolodated into a smaller space, and the sonar cooling equipment room can move down into the bilge where the fuel tank currently is.

Some may ask: "What about the fuel? Wouldn't we lose range because the sonar cooling room is now displacing fuel?"

The answer is that since 1. the ship will be lengthened slightly, the void in the bottom o fthe ship will be lengthened by 16' would accommodate most of the displaced fuel.

2. The USN will actually be able to be some sort of effective NGFS.

Here the displacement of the fuel and sonar room will accommodate a 500 round 8" magazine or a 600 round 155mm magazine in proportion to that of the Spruance-class. That means that as the Spruance-class was laid out, this magazine would accommodate at least 80 LRLAP rounds and 520 155mm rounds. With the smaller diameter of the 155m vs the 8-inch we could accommodate an even 100 LRPAP 155mm rounds and 500 155mm rounds.

To be honest, 100 LRPAP rounds would be alright in an operational capacity. Most NSFS missions will be within the 155mm RAPed Excalibur rounds, and they would accomplish most missions.

In order to make this work, the hull would have to be lengthened as if the ship were built to have 64-cell VLS tubes forward and a standard 5"/62caliber gun forward. To fit a 500 round 8"/60 caliber gun and magazine or a 600 round 155mm/60caliber gun and magazine forward, the ship should only be able to accommodate 48 VLS tubes forward and the rest of the 80 missiles aft, similar to the South Korean KDHIIIs.

When constructed with belts of HSLA-100 this would be a far superior DDG than any we have produced.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I think a beam increase/length increae/length increased beam to length ratio such as 9:1 is needed and yes, add AMDR-S and AMDR-X radar system with the beam increased to facilitate construction and repair as GAO report pointed out as internal spaces being very crammed that complicated and increased the cost of construction and presumably repairs, refits and modernization. Install the Penn State University/Advance Acoustic Concepts 6.75 inch antitopedo torpedo.

The Russians have advertised their 12.75 inch anti torpedo torpedo so why not have the ATTs we have been developing for fleet use installed?

Mount the Mk 71 Mod X 8 inch/60 calibre gun forward and develop rocket assist or ramjet assisted long range (100 nmi ?) HE/AP/cargo rounds and have the Italian 127 mm/64 calibre LW from Oto Melara and have forward/aft and displacing the Phalanx mounts with the longer ranged and more effective 76 mm/ 62 calibre Super Rapid, the improved model able not only to fire at 120 rounds per minute but using guided Davide AA ammo or conventional proximity fused shells, switchable during firing and guidance radar for AA shells. Volcano rounds availible for both the 127 and 76 mm mounts.

The 35mm Millenium gun port and starboard for CIWS with antisurface capability and a pair of port/starboard Typhoon 30 mm gun mounts for engaging small boats/

Twenty-one inch wire guided MK 48s torpedoes fired from internal tubes as originally specified for the Spruance class DDs. This is a pet peeve of mine, namely, the Mk 54 torpedoes are too small and lack an antisurface capability. Have the Sideshooter modification to the five inch gun. This reduces deck space demands for the Mk 49 RAM launcher by mounting it on both sides of the gunhouse and mechanically connected to the trunnion so it elevates with the gun and traverses with the gun. You would have 42 launch tubes to not only include RAM but any size and weight and diameter compatible store such as decoys or even rocket boosted ATTs as they are only 6.75 inches by 112 inches. Propulsion is by gas/diesel electric gen sets providing power through an IPS for hotel loads and powering four 25,000 shp Azipods that free up space in the stern for other uses and increased engineroom seperation to provide a redundancy of power that would specifically enable combat capability even with a Cole type suicide boat w/o the complete power loss of the Cole attack. Finally, design all interior spaces for easy access for damage control parties and add magazine armour

Wow. That sounds more like a ship that resembles a DDG-51 rather than a new flight of DDG-51.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Goal keeper is out of production. a 21 round RAM launcher would be better on the stern aft the AN/SPG-62. Phalanx Block 1B infront of the bridge. You might stretch the ship a bit a slip in a pair of the 57mm guns.

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

Do you really think thst matters? NTU has been "out of production", but the US is still supporting it and producing new equipment from IADTS and SYS-2 to the SPG-51D. If someone wanted a Goalkeeper, the manufacturer would very, very happily make one.

Why would you use the 57mm gun?! That is garbage compared to the 76mm RF. Any export version of the LCS is equipped with the 76mmRF, because the 57mm is a super underperformer. Even Under Secretary of the Navy Work said that the 57mm gun in the LCS-1s may be replaced by the 76mm SR, and there is a version if the international LCS mounting either the 76mm or the Mk45 Mod4 5". The 76mm offers greater reliability, greater ammunition, and a far smaller gun shield.

If you want to venture as far as the 57mm, there is no reason to not move to the 76mm.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Especially if the Italians get their "Vulcano" laser guided round working for the 76mm. That will make it FAR more capable and viable AA gun against anything non-supersonic and maybe even then some.

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984

_________________
So many models... So little time...

I agree that for an improved Burke, the 76mm mount is the way to go, perhaps a single centerline mount amidships would work just as well as a pair of waist Mk110s. A super firing 76mm forward paired with your Mk71 would be the cat's meow.

That said, the 57mm gun is not "junk." The mount is a refined descendent of decades of successful automatic cannons and, for its originally intended purpose, the 57mm cartridge is perfect as a medium caliber anti-aircraft weapon. The advantage of the 57mm system over the 76mm gun is *weight*. And newer mountings may reduce weight by as much as 40% over current models.

I see the 57mm as a good fit for smaller combatantants like strike craft and mine sweepers. It should be in the USN/USCG arsenal.

Yeah, I should have edited that a little more. While it may be significantly lighter than the 76mm SR, the 76mm is still light enough to be fit on craft smaller than Cyclone class PCs. I guess what it really boils down to is: which is more reliable in combat conditions? I don't know. It appears and only appears that there is a far better option than the 57mm that is light enough to fit on the smallest platforms, the 76mmSR gun.

It would be really great if they could make the gun shield smaller. It's almost as big as a 5" shield, and for that size...it really requires a large foot print.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Here is a photo I took of one of our 57mm with both hatches open - you can see that the shield doesn't really have any more room to shrink. Width-wise, maybe, if you're willing to give up the local-control console (accessible via side hatch), but not lengthwise.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

For sure. The 76mmSR is significantly smaller. I would prefer this as shoulder mounts and as a stern mount/hip mounts on a minimum Burke-wide platform and perhaps a wider one like the Virginias that allows more deck space. Perhaps this would wind up working as well as shoulder mounts and one mount in place of the stern Phalanx mount.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJpqNFkd9gI

Also, just imagine this weapon on an improved Cyclone-class PC. The Cyclones are rated to carry this weapon. A new class of PCs would really benefit from this weapon system in all ways.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Points taken.

The heart of the matter is this: what do you want the gun to do? If you need a multipurpose gun and can only have one mount, the 76mmm SR is tough to beat, at least on paper.

On the other hand, if you are looking at secondary armament then a single purpose gun specifically for killing lightly armored targets like aircraft and boat swarms, then the 57mm is competitive. The 57 mm gun in its current guise is heavy weighing in at 14,000 kg for a complete mount with installed with 1,120 rounds. manufacturer claims of a future 40% reduction in weight have to be taken with guarded enthusiasm.

I strongly agree that reliability is a huge issue, but I am not sure that we will have access to test data that will settle the issue one way or the other. This is an issue for many, many weapons, vehicles, sensors, etc.. One thing that worries me is that the Oto Melara had accolades around the globe, but in USN service on FFG-7s there were issues with reliability/safety, and accuracy of the 76mm gun. Apparently these are fixed but, I think that some scepticism is warranted. The 76 mm gun is never going to fire AHEAD type ammunition, but does offer other munitions choices.

I think that much of the bulk of the Mk110 has to do with the fuse setting and ammunition selection. If BAE could make it’s weapon fire 76 mm ammunition… 

Excellent points, sir! Thank you.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Dave,

The more I think about this the more I see this evolving into two possible ships, an AAW DDLG or a low end CG.

To keep this as a DDLG, then I suggest that in addition to your desired Mk71 and extra VLS cells, that the ship include two (2) SeaRam/RAM CIWS, and possibly 76mm or 57 mm mount aft.

A critical decision is to add TACTASS, or at least leave hull volume for it.

I would go with an internal torpedo tube arrangement with 533 mm tubes P/S. Smaller Mk 46 torpedoes coud be launched with an adaptor (other navies do this with large torpedo tubes), and the bigger tubes open up the universe of submarine delivered: mines, UUVs, and the potential to launch large anti surface ship torpedoes (think surface launched Mk48 without the sophisticated sensor/computer/wire guidance package).

I am sceptical of the UUV hangers on an AAW platform; I would save the weight/volume for more weapons capability.

If one were to get a bit exotic with materials, some of the modern GRP products (not your fiberglass fishing boat material) are strong, light weight, highly flame retardant, and have very low radar signature. Perhaps we might make some of the superstructure components with GRP – possibly starting with the stacks? The weight savings might enable some additional sensor or weapon capability.