The Ship Model Forum

Good afternoon watchers, one and all!!!

With the forward movement of the DDG-51 Flight IIA modified to a "Flight III" as the "ship-of-choice" for the smallest AMDR suite, how would you arrange a model of the ship? Would you follow the basic plan, or would you bump the ship out to a longer length and larger gun?

For instance, considerations are adding 32' plug in the bow to accommodate 128 Mk41 VLS tubes or 96 missiles with the longer bow to accommodate a larger gun magazine (350 round) 155mm AGS(L) or a 500+ round Mk71 8"/60caliber gun. How would you augment the ship's CIWS (switch to RAM, add other weapons)?

Would you add Harpoons or other offensive missile systems?

How would you fit the ship?

One and all, I look forward to hearing some concepts

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I would definitely lengthen the hull.

I would like to see a 64 cell Mk41 VLS forward and Aft, 128 cells total. At this time I am not sure that adding the Mk57 gains much, but if needed in an MLU Mk57 could replace some or all Mk41.
Cells are versatility, and the higher the number the more likely the proper number of right weapons will be on hand for the duration of the vessel's mission. This VLS would be packing Tomahawk (and its eventual replacement), LRASM, SM-2, SM-3, SM-6 (?), ESSM, VLASROC, etc.

I prefer a developed version of the Mk71, but the AGS(L) seems a very plausible alternative. If the primary mission of this vessel is task force escort this will not be my highest priority, and I might 'settle' for a OTO Melara 127mm/64 if weight and space does not allow for the heavier weapons after upgrading the VLS forward.

The positions occupied by MK15 CIWS in the flight I DDG-51 I would consider Millennium guns, RAM, or a 76mm Super Rapid aft if I would fit it. An OTO 127mm/64 forward and a 76mm Super Rapid aft would give a nice level of surface gunfire to the vessel (clearly not as good at NGFS as the 203/155mm solutions, though), and the forward platform could hold either RAM or a Millennium gun.

I would equip Tomahawk and LRASM in the VLS, and would consider adding the NSM on the weather deck, as NSM is designed for littorals, and has a lower per-unit cost than LRASM and I expect it will do a better job in shorter range scenarios than the LRASM. Harpoon I would only put in as a backup if LRASM is delayed or cancelled, and it would have to take the space for the NSM.

The lengthened ship will hopefully have increased bunkerage, as one of the primary items that must be upgraded is electrical power generation for the AMDR. Every opportunity after the engineering, sensor, and weapon upgrade should be taken to improve the tight berthing spaces aboard.

Now, this reads as a huge want list, which is probably not compatible with any form of fiscal reality, but hey, we have to have dreams, right?

In order to keep the crew requirements down, I would probably keep the two CIWS positions as Millennium guns to lower the number of onboard skills needed.

so there you have my first swag

I agree. Since the Mk57 launcher is so much larger than the Mk41, I would prefer to see it on a significantly larger ship.

Indeed. The John Paul Jones just proofed the SM-6 in "the longest surface to air shot in history."

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=81929

I prefer the Mk71 as well, but if the Flight III were to get that, the ship would have to remain at 32-cells forward. The extra room provided by the 32' plug would have to go toward the gun. Not because of the gun's weight or size, but instead to make sure the ship could have a full magazine instead of doing what the DDG-51s currently do: share the magazine with the Sonar Control Room. I would want the extra space so Sonar Control could be in another space, and there could be a proper magazine, enabling the mount to have a Spruance-class 8" magazine of 500 rounds.

Unfortunately, we know next to nothing about the AGS(L) weapon system. It probably won't be worth it, and the US Navy would be better off soliciting BAE to develop a 155mm version of the current Mk45 Mod4 and perhaps up the ready service loader from 20 to 30 rounds. This way we could have a conventional gun that would be able to fire the massively capable existing family of 155mm ammunition. With Excalibur 155mm rounds being able to achieve 41,000 yards fired from 39caliber field artillery, a 62 caliber naval gun would be able to throw those rounds well beyond anything 5" is looking at.

We must also keep in mind that the OTO 5"/64 is almost as big as the Mk71. Unless you're using laser guided 5" rounds for anti-boat, I don't see an advantage of using the OTO 5". Something to think about is that if not precision guided, it takes too much (60 rounds per minute to 20 rounds landing in 5 seconds) to make the 5" round effective at anti-surface or land attack.

Keep in mind that the Millennium Gun requires an external fire control source. For a CIWS role, that is very dangerous, because most mast-mounted fire control radars aren't that precise. Aegis might be able to do it in the tight confines of the CIWS range. Consider SeaRAM instead?

Your point about the 76mm SR mounted aft is a nice one, but it does require the aft CIWS mount to be moved.



I assume you're talking about this one?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBakzoQDd10

Pretty darn impressive! It certainly seems to be a legit "modern Harpoon". I wonder if its launchers could be arranged similarly to those of Harpoons. In a Flight III, perhaps arranged between the stacks as the Harpoons are called for in the DDG- Flight IIA design.

When combined with the 76mm SR pumping our radar guided rounds, such a weapon would be pretty effective.

Unless they receive a huge modernization in software and guidance capabilities, I believe Harpoon has run its course. It is too susceptible to modern countermeasures go. Over 90% of canister fired Harpoons have not been touched or even maintained since the late 1990s. Countermeasures have surpassed Harpoon's discrimination capabilities.

On a similar note, I believe the entire canister Harpoon inventory needs to be shifted over to a missile carrying versions of the Cyclone-class PC.

Depending on where the plug would go, it surely could. However, if utilizing the the plug for an additional 32-cells or a full gun magazine forward, everything else in the ship will likely and unfortunately remain the same.

For sure, but adding the Millennium Gun to the ship's existing CIWS and WDS would be easy. The Millennium Gun mounts to the same base ring as the Mk38 25mm Bushmaster gun. With minimal trunking, the Millennium Gun could be guided by and slaved to a CIWS unit. My personal arrangement would be pairing a Millennium Gun with a SeaRAM mount. The SeaRAM would now have more resources at its disposal.

If you swapped Millennium Guns for the existing Mk38s (a fantastic idea) the manning would be the same. Even if the Millennium Gun were to be added to the existing CIWS positions, manning would not likely change. I would suggest that two Sailors would be sent to Millennium Gun school instead of Mk38 Mod2 school.

I would like to see 2 Millennium Guns per side on a Flight III in hip and shoulder mounts.

Excellent input as always, SumGui!!! Thanks so much for your input!!!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I'm a bit less concerned with adding VLS cells than making better use of the current ones. Using ESSM and adding a RAM launcher or two makes needing more SM-2/SM-6 less of an issue, since total missile load goes up. I still would like to see some sort of quad pack surface attack missile either based on the ESSM air frame or some variant of the Naval Strike Missile. I think the upsizing via plug or even a beam increase should go towards generation, cooling capacity and bunkerage. Also AMDR has more weight topside due to the active nature of the modules, so stability might be an issue with a Flight IIA hull. Should we go with a different engine combo to take advantage of better turbines? I don't think we could get away with integrated electric just do to budget reasons, although it would be nice. Left and right Millennium guns would be a definite improvement over the Mk 38s, especially if you use something like the Mantis system the German army has (six guns with two sensor units, but we would use fewer guns). It would keep the guns from needing input data from ship systems. I'm not sure we could get enough support for changing the main gun, it may have to wait for another hull.

We have to keep in mind that the Burke is being used because little alteration is needed. Adding a plug is one thing. There is already detailed engineering dictating how to do that. A beam increase, however would be redesigning a lot, lot, lot more. A beam increase is also unnecessary and makes no sense. It's already super fat for its length. Gibbs&Cox has already stated that an addition of 32' of length would add 1.5knits to the ship's speed wo the current propulsion plant. Widening it would be detrimental. Lengthening it is the best (and only) way to go.

The flight III is already receiving modest redesigns to boost its buoyancy. They will have sterns that don't cut in, instead their beam will extend all the way to the fantail. How much extra buoyancy the provides, I am not sure, but a least they are trying to address the issue.

Unfortunately, there is no offensive ESSM being fielded.

Another main gun is easy. It's just a question of the Navy being creative enough to do it. Unfortunately, the Navy is no longer creative, at all.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

What about the possibility of using StanFlex modules (not LCS modules)? This is kind of just brain storming but the Absalon and Iver Huitfeldt class make good use of them for missiles and gun systems. Put your ASM of choice, the Millennium guns, possible 76mm and maybe even a UAV module in them. I'm still wondering what kind of propulsion/generation changes the Flight III is going to need, any scuttlebutt?

..

I am just about to embark on a road trip to LA to see the USS Iowa, so I will be a little brief this morning Off hand, I don't know the specificis, but yes, the power generation and elements of the propulsion plant are going to be different than the Flight IIAs. The Flight IIIs are said to incorporate a lot the new pieces being used in DDG-1000.

As far as the "modules" go, the weapon systems installed in the ship are already "modules". The 5" and 32-cell VLS forward are "A" sized weapons modules. The 64-cell VLS aft is a "B"-sized weapons module. The VLS can already be removed without an issue. To make the 5" similar would take work, but in new construction would probably require little redesign.

Other than those areas, I don't know where you would install deck penetrating weapon. The Burkes are already so overly cramped that all of the volume is already claimed. As you know, the area between the stacks can be assigned to different systems. Those systems range from sliding pad-eyes, NULKA launchers, Harpoon anti-ship missiles, etc. However, that's about it.

The sucky thing about working with the Flight III is that most of the perimeters area already set. What you can do is typical non-deck penetrating additions.

On the gun note, that's one thing I like about a conventional 155mm mount. The gun can sit in the same position just fine. The magazine is already established. The DDG-51s carry over 600 rounds of 5" in its magazine (aka deep mag). Swapping out 5" for 155mm is a change, but not a BIG change like it would be with 8" rounds. By measuring out the projectile cages and height difference in 155mm stacked vs 5" stacked, the Burkes' 5" magazines can hold around 450 standard (HE, RDX, TNT) 155mm rounds. Excalibur rounds, since they're about 10" longer than typical rounds, would most conveniently be stored along the rear of the magazine. In that configuration, you could likely store over 150 extended range Excalibur Increment 1B rounds (that is both GPS and Semi-Active_laser seeker). If the mission required more and/or cheaper precision guided rounds, a large number of standard 155mm rounds fitted with Course Corrective Fuses fill the bill.

I think Bob is 100% on the mark saying that the ship would only superficially appear like the Flight IIAs. Simply going from Flight I/II to IIA required over 60% of the ship's drawings to be changed. This Flight III stuff will likely leave less than 10% of the ship unchanged.

Got to go!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I understand what you're saying, but it's not the same. The plug does not typically go in a convenient area; it goes where it is needed. Typically it needs to go where it's needed. In this case between the super structure and forward missile battery.

There is a method called "plug and slide where they may add the extra length to the center and the slide all of the internals backward, leaving a void where it's needed: just ahead of the super structure. Her sheer would look a little silly, but it is feasible.

One option I have heard explored amongst NAVSEA personnel I know is to incorporate many of the lessons learned in the design and construction of the South Korean KDH-III DDGs, which are nearly 44' longer and have a full 128-cell VLS. Also, neither they nor the Kongo-class DDGs suffer the over-dense and cramped construction of the DDG-51s.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

The Atago and Sejong the Great classes show a good reference for lengthened DDG-51s in my opinion.

The bow of the Atago class holds a full 64 cell mk 41, the bow of the Sejong holds a 48 cell vls.

Aft, I do not like the configuration of the Atago - I prefer the Sejong - but the Sejong also looses space and weight efficiency by mounting two separate VLS aft - 1x32 Mk 41 and 48 Korean VLS. The aft section of Sejong should provide a good reference, provided the dual VLS is altered to a single 64 cell Mk 41.

Yes, I am basically saying use the bow of the Atago and the stern (actually, probably everything aft of the forward VLS...) of the Sejong for reference.

Also not that both of these platforms have been widened by about 4 feet.

I think it would need to have a top crew requirement not exceeding a Burke in order to be cost effective - more capability at a similar operating cost can be sold to to the money people in Washington. A higher operating cost would make approving this very difficult, because it will already cost more on construction.

Which is strange, because the Sejong cost less than 1/2 that of a DDG-51 Flight IIA in US dollars. Makes you wonder what kind of efficiencies the South Koreans have over the US, because other than BMD (which will be upgraded shortly) it does not appear the Sejong-class has any less capability. I am willing to bet the efficiencies are found in a huge reduction in administrative and bureaucratic requirements.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

The wages there are also a lot cheaper.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

Perhaps! It still blows my mind that for the price of a DDG-51 Flight IIA, you could also build form the keel up an Iowa-class battleship to her current standards. Aegis costs an awful lot!!!

For the cost of the DDG-51 Flight III ($3.2 Billion) you could build a new Iowa-class battleship with 128 VLS, a full Ford electronics suite, 9 16" guns, 6 5"/62caliber guns, 4 CIWS, 2 RAM, 2 SPQ-9B, NIXIE, SPS-48G, SPS-49A(v)1, LHD C4I, and all of the smaller equipment the battleships carried in the early 1990s.

The Navy's priorities are all screwed up, because the USN brass is NO LONGER CREATIVE.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Isn't the DDG-1000 only a little more than that 3.2 billion amount? I'll admit the accounting the Navy uses, doesn't seem to match the classes I took.