The Ship Model Forum

There does not have to be a lot of creativity in this one. It can be moved 10' aft out of the center of the funnels an just ahead of the adjoining structure and a little closer to the rail. They don't have to be as angled and space consuming as they are. Plus one must keep in mind between the stacks was where the Harpoons were originally going to go.

I am not quite sure, but the Mk46 has to have more. You might want to consider, too that the Mk38 only requires above deck access while the Mk46 requires below deck access.

I would love to see the nametag that says LCDR Gui

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I understand what you're saying about some of these points. There are two elements concerning the Gearing and the Moskit that cause issues. One, the warhead is about the same NEW as a Harpoon, but knowing Russian explosive sluries it probably does not yield as much as the Harpoon. However, what might make the difference is the arrival speed. Seeing how the Moskit arrives at only 15' above the water (supposedly) and is trucking along at anywhere between Mack 2 and 3, its kenetic energy would be pretty impressive. The Moskit will destroy whatever it hits, the bridge, the bow, the flight deck, the stern, a gun mount, but seeing how they survived multiple Kamikaze strikes in WWII and kept fighting, do you not think that a Gearing would survive at least one Moskit strike? I think a WWII one would, and especially if one were but with HSLA steel today with modern welding technology it would as well.

Don't forget about BAE's BTERM it's still developing.

Don't forget about it's anti-missile capability! Especially on a Burke, they fold the Block 1B in as an essential element of the anti-missile system.

While this is true, as we tested the SM2 on the Spruance-class as we sunk the entire class like a bunch of retards, the SM2s locked onto the masts and neglected the structure. So, this means that the SM-2, when fired at an enemy ship (not a corvette or anything small like in Operation Praying Mantis) the missile would go for the mast and take out the radars and other mast mounted electronics, but a Sovremenny style ship like the Chinese have would still be able to engage with their guns and pummel a Burke to pieces. As a result, while the SM2 can wound another ship but not take it out of the fight, I would certainly make the case that the anti-ship missile is still needed, and that means the Harpoon is rather important.

Only some of them. As can be found on the net, most of the Fligth IIAs don't have TACTAS.

I understand you are simply stating reality, but I would certainly say that this is an error is naval strategy. Carrier aircraft will never, ever get close enough to drop a bomb on a modern ship. The target ship’s AAW system will shoot the airplane down as soon as it’s detected….or it will shoot the bomb down and then shoot the airplane down. The only way carrier aircraft can strike a ship is by launching Harpoons or SLAMs from quite some distance.

Like I stated earlier, there is a huge shift in naval thinking today. The old way of thinking is that everyone will be driving around with a carrier so there will always be a carrier around. The current way of thinking and that for the foreseeable future is that surface ships are operating independently of a carrier and will be operating independently of a carrier a lot more of the time in coming years. Thus the ships need to be able to perform planned and definitive ASM strikes from well over the horizon as opposed to last minute "oh $#it, there they are!" ship to ship combat that an SM2 is only good for. SM2s can only be used in an anti-ship role in a panic situation in order to potentially blind an enemy, never to sink or destroy them. Do you honestly think that an SM2...or even a barrage of SM2s...would disable a ship like this? Probably not. We have to plan like it will not. However, even if SM2s are successfully employed, the enemy ship may still very well be able to engage you with their deck guns, and once they begin landing rounds in your ship, they will win, your SM2s or not. Thus ASMs, Harpoons in this case, are hugely important.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

It seems 2 me that we are seeing something of a turning back of the clock in naval strategy due mostly 2 the extreme cost of Carrier's (and associated equip)?? With the US unable 2 field 13 Big carriers ( not counting the very capable LHA's/LHD's of the Tarawa and Wasp classes) like they used 2, its back 2 the days of independent cruising without backup of major air assets Prompting the need for better equipped ships. (OT I always wondered why they didn't put the California and Virginia class CGN's in the reserve fleet??? rather than the breakers torch??)
Now the ship required need's good armor, big guns and lots of missiles...sounds like a different thread 2 me.....CGN-42 upgrade...!!

Cheers Bruce

_________________
building:
1/72 RC USS LONG BEACH CGN9
1/72 RC USS CALIFORNIA CGN36
1/72 RC USS SAIPAN LHA2
1/72 RC USS JOHN PAUL JONES DDG53
1/72 RC USS SHARK SSN591
1/72 RC USS SEAWOLF SSN21
1/72 RC USS ALBANY CG10

Bruce, I think you and I will be friends! I think you will like my CGN-42 thread as soon as I begin constuction, my man.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

336+75 is a little light, in my opinion. I’d like to exceed 600, not go below it.

For Mk 46, I was proposing a one level deckhouse to avoid the work required for sinking it in the existing deck. Does it require multiple levels below that?

That is indeed the DDV8 I was talking about – I take the illustration with a grain of salt. It shows no illuminators, so I wonder if the placement of the Ram launchers was artistic license. I like the general layout, but do not advocate the lack of illuminators…

Note that that padeye is angled to reduce RCS. I’d probably replace it with a collapsible piece, similar to what Long Beach had forward, and have it behind an RCS reducing cover. After all, nobody cares about RCS between the two vessels during UNREP.

No go on the LCDR, I’ll stick with Chief, thank you very much.

Note on the Anti-surface capability of the SM2 – it is a secondary role, so naturally it will not be as effective as a weapon who’s primary role is Anti-surface. Great at taking out electronics and exposed equipment, tho..
Right now I’m leaning toward the Kongsburg NSM as an example of a developed ASM, as Harpoon seems to not be moving forward in development.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Strike_Missile
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... 20Expected

We have to lose the assumption that Carrier aircraft will always be there – they won’t be. There will never be enough carriers, and I expect we will be reducing from our current number. Add to it the fact that Naval aircraft delivered munitions is one of the most expensive ways to deliver effects on a target and it becomes clear that unaffordability make the likelihood of availability in a given hot spot lower.

Naval aviation has choked itself by going almost completely to a strike only role, which devalues the carriers’ former strong point of organic air anywhere. That makes carrier less relevant, and that is the wrong direction to go when costs are increasing while budgets are decreasing.

That being said, the maturation of Aegis make survivability of a surface asset against significant air attack a real possibility (one the reasons I wanted to exploit the already extant Flight I Burke’s for this mission).

Love that last graphic.

Mk 46


RAM


Searam

The Sovremenny class DDG is not that powerful. She has 8 3M80 "Moskit" missiles which are her main armament. 130mm AK-130 gun is only so-so it has a lower rate of fire than originally designed for hence the twin turret. It jams alot an in the odd event that in a war the ships closed to gun range the Arleigh Burke will be be able to attack it with its Mk45 mod4 gun before it can close the range. Four or five Standard missiles hitting her would most likely disable her electronics which would make her a sitting duck. Also the PLA-N has considered removing the AK-130 from their ships due to their low reliability and are looking for a gun it replace them with. I might also add that of all the Sovremenny class ships built only four remain in service in the Russian Navy and two with the PLA-N. THey have terrific problems with their powerplants and two ships were written off after fires in their engine rooms.

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

How terrible! Poor Russian ships. I would assume that you would provide the same survivability of about 5 SMs to other ships?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I may be missing your point, here, but the Sovremenny gun is quite imposing on paper compared to the U.S. Navy's Mk45. Public sources credit the AK-130 with 20-35 rds/min (I saw one report stating 20-86 rds/min but I'm skeptical of that; also, I think the rds/min figure is for the mount, not per barrel) and an effective range of 12 nm. By comparison, the Mk45 is credited with 16-20 rds/min with an effective range of 13 nm. As far as reliability goes, I have no information and can't comment. So a single Burke could generate 16-20 rds/min against a single Sovremenny which could generate 40-70 rds/min (two gun mounts). Effective ranges are essentially the same. Reliablity issues aside (do you have a source for that, by the way? I've never seen reliability complaints though I'm hardly privy to Russian/Chinese reports!), the Sovremenny has a much better gun system. I can't credit your statement that a Burke can attack a Sovremenny before it can close the range. Care to explain what you meant?


Presumably, you'd acknowledge that the reverse is also true? Four or five SAM's from the Sovremenny would do the same to a Burke? I assume that the Sovremenny would be firing back? Also, Soviet ships have always been designed with a far more redundant and robust secondary systems (EO, in particular) compared to U.S. ships. This may be due to an expectation of greater mechanical problems but, regardless, the result is that Soviet designed ships are far better equipped to take combat damage and keep fighting than U.S. ships.


To be fair, very few ships remain active in the Russian Navy, period, and it has far more to do with money than technical issues.

Great debate about Russian ships! What a fascinating subject. Seeing how the USS Hull landed 5 out of 5 laser guided 8-inch rounds on a target hulk with her Mk71, I wonder how preferable such a weapon would be in a surface battle? I imagine pretty desireable. Carrying the same impact as a Harpoon, the effect might be pretty devestating.

Now imagine a Des Moines heavy cruiser getting into such a fight. Oh my.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

If you believe the values NavWeaps has listed for the AK-130 and the Mk-45 5"/62 both guns are equal in the range department.

Max ranges:
AK-130: 25,150 yards = 12.68 NM
Mk-45 5"/62: 25,880 yards = 12.78 NM

The USN mount has VERY slight edge in range, but how often does anyone shoot their guns at the manufacturer specified MAX range?

ROF goes to the AK-130 (40 rpm max) with Mk-45 5 rounds behind (35 rpm max).

What you also need to look at is the weight of the shells and their respective muzzle velocities. The AK-130 fires a 73.6 lbs shell while the Mk-45 fires a 67 lbs shell. Muzzle velocities are practically identical; AK-130, 2,788 fps and the Mk-45, 2,725 fps. So it seems that the AK-130 can theoretically cause more damage with each hit than the Mk-45 can, albeit only slightly more.

NavWeaps does lists two cartridges for conventional 5" rounds separate from ERGM or BTERM. Apparently there is an extended range cartridge called the EX-175, in addition to the standard Mk-67 cartridge.

EX-175:
Range: 42,000 yards = 20.74 NM
MV: 3,450 FPS

I am unfamiliar with this cartridge though. Does anyone have any info on it?

If the USN ever decides to employ ERGM rounds then the Mk-45 will be able to reach out to 63 NM IE, game over! Any gun vs gun battle would be horribly one sided. Don't know if that will ever happen though.

So it seems the two gun systems would be evenly matched unless the USN employed the extended range rounds listed on NavWeaps. To pick a real winner it would come down to fire control systems, the ship's crews, and a myriad of other factors.

By the way, I have read and heard that although Sovremenny's appear to have only 2 quad launchers for SS-N-22s (8 missiles), they in fact have twice that amount. Each of the 4 squares on the launchers hold 2 missiles. Anyone else ever heard this? Is this simply another internet rumor or an actual fact?

Your thoughts gentlemen?

_________________
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

Don't forget that the Sovremenny has two mounts to the Burke's one. Thus, the rate of fire for the Sovremenny (40 rds/min sustained) is over twice that of the Burke (16 rds/min sustained).

As far as two Sunburn missiles per cannister, I doubt it. The Sunburn is a big missile and is a tight fit. There is no way two missiles could fit. Perhaps they've double loaded the cannisters with the much smaller Harpoonski, similar to the quad packing of the ESSM? I'm just speculating. I've not heard of that being done.

I'd certainly prefer a bigger gun! That said, I assume the test firing you're referring to involved a motionless target being fired on at relatively close range from a slowly moving ship that was not, itself, maneuvering radically? I hate these kinds of tests for anything other than mechanical validation. For combat assessment, both the target and firing platform need to be sailing at 30+ kts and maneuvering erratically. Then let's see how many, if any, shots land on target.

Don't get me wrong. I'm totally in favor of having the Mk71 installed. It's just that it's going to perform like every other weapon system in the history of the world when used in a real combat situation: well below claimed performance. That's not a criticism, just a bit of reality. I'd still much rather have a reduced performance Mk71 than a reduced performance Mk45 (or AK-130).

The Flight I and II Arleigh Burkes do deploy with Harpoon missiles, only the Flight IIA don't.

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

I feel like we're taking baby steps here: While the Flight Is and IIs carry Harpoons, the question is: How many should it carry? The 8, if fired all at once, can penetrate one ship’s defenses and destroy it. We need to consider what a modern DDG needs to be able to do. That is sink at least 2 ships, not disable…sink.

With the 8-inch, that's a good question, Carr. I don't know about the specifics of the drill at hand, but I bet you're right. I bet the hulk was indeed stationary, and the engagement was perfectly planned. The only situations I know of where the performance of a ship's combat systems were really tested was with the Iowa in 1986 where the ship was off Viequez and was given off the cuff fire missions from forward observers, and she had to immediately engage as if in combat conditions. Iowa out-performed the best carrier response times, accuracy, destruction of targets, and volume called to be delivered on targets. Iowa, when called to sustain fire was able to pour on 300 rounds of live HC on shifting targets within three grid squares (a localized area) without pause or failure. No carrier could have accomplished that kind of tactical accuracy or result.

I would suggest that the Mk71, if able to track and maintain laser designation on a target ship (which is not hard at all) could indeed land most of its rounds directly on the hull of the target ship. Since each 8-inch round is delivering as much destructive power as a Harpoon, the Mk71 armed ship, firing 12 rounds per minute, would dominate the situation as long as its gun was in operation.

Sumgui, it was reported that the USS Hull had the smallest ship fil of 411 total rounds, but that was indeed in the tiny hull of a Forrest Sherman-class DD. I have inquired with Dahlgren, but I think the Burkes can handle a much larger magazine. I don't think it can take 600 rounds of 8" ERGM, but it could probably take a whole lot more than the 411 the hull had of the standard 8-inch HC and/or laser-guided rounds.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

The only real world test of guns that I can think of was the Vincennes attempt to engage multiple small craft with the Mk45's and the result of that was a complete failure with no confirmed hits that I'm aware of. Now, we all think that improvements have taken us to the point where todays guns and control systems can drop rounds inside the designated porthole of the target. But why do we think that? What tests have been performed that prove that kind of ability under real world conditions? Do we have anything other than staged tests and manufacurer's claims? I truly don't know and am asking. The Navy may have performed such tests but chosen not to share them with us (kind of inconsiderate not to share secrets with us modellers!). However, I suspect that such tests have not been performed and that all claims are just extrapolations from staged tests against stationary targets under ideal conditions. I would hope that there have, indeed, been improvements made since the Vincennes incident but I'm also certain that the reality of performance will turn out to be a disappointment (better than Vincennes but significantly less than we're hoping for) when the time comes.

Before we get too carried away with our faith in gun accuracy, let's see what a Mk45 (or Mk110, or Mk71) does against a high speed, maneuvering Hammerhead (remote controlled RHIB-like drones) in a realistic test. I'm betting we're going to find the same thing the sailors in WWII did: volume of fire is our best friend.

This is not a call to eliminate guns. Just the opposite! It's a call to realize that a single gun (whether Mk45, Mk71, 0.50 cal MG, or whatever) will not be a one-shot, one-kill wonder weapon. Instead, we'll find that volume of fire will be necessary to make up for the (significantly) less than 100% accuracy that we'll inevitably see. So, if a Mk71 seems like a good idea, then install two. If two Mk45's should be able to do the job, install three or four. I realize that there are real world space/weight limitations and we'll have to do the best we can but maybe, just maybe, we should be designing the ships around the weapons systems rather than the reverse where we try to fit weapons into artificially constrained space. A Burke with one gun?!? Come on... what moron thought that was a good idea? And, of course, none of this touches on redundancy and combat damage (or simple mechanical failure) which dictates multiple gun mounts. All right, I'm going off on a tangent so I'll step down from the soapbox ... Oof! Ah. Ouch. Crap, I twisted my metaphorical ankle! That'll teach me not to go on a rant.

Regards,
Bob

The Vincennes had the problem of having 2 127mm/54 Mk45 guns and 4 0.5cal M2 for engaging the Iranian speed boats. The M2 didn't have enough fire power and the ship had to turn constantly to bring the guns around. An operator on the Aegis system who was tired misread information off his monitor. The rest well known. The immediate solution was to break out WW2 era 20mm, and 40mm bofors out of storage and fit them on ships in the Gulf. The 25mm M242 was adapted as the Mk38 mod 0 and Mk46 gun mounts. The stabilized 25mm mounting the Mk38 mod 2 is being added to many ships. being stabilized will make it a much more effective weapon than a manual aimed weapon. The USN wanted a more powerful version first a 40mm version was tested but an even more powerful 57mm gun was adapted. The 57mm Mk110, now being added to the LCS and some other ships, has a large magazine capacity, high fire rate, low manning requirements, and doesn't jam. The 57mm lays out a nice volume of fire.

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

So what's different today? How would the engagement be any different today with a Burke (or Tico)? You'd still have a radically maneuvering ship using Mk45 to engage a very small, fast, jinking target. I don't see a vastly different result. Do you?

Are you saying that a Mk38 would perform any better? If you are, what's your basis for saying so? Do you know of any semi-realistic testing that proves that a Mk38 could stay locked (and provide sufficient accuracy for a reasonable chance of a hit) on to a fast, erratically maneuvering target while its own ship was also moving fast and erratically?

Remember, there's two aspects to gunnery accuracy: first is the ability to "lock" on (measure range, speed, course, etc.) and the second is the ability to get a shot off before those conditions change (target changes course, own ship pitches/rolls, etc.). In theory, we've made technological advances (stabilization being a good one) that should improve the situation but is there any testing, whatsoever, in the public domain that proves that it does?

At the risk of beating a dead horse, we're all buying into the belief that we now have wonder weapons. Facing a swarm of Iranian speedboats? Add a Mk110 (or Mk38, or whatever your favorite mount is) and that'll take care of it. Got 20 speedboats coming your way? Better allocate 21 shells just to err on the side of caution.

I'm not saying to give up and that it's impossible for ship mounted guns to hit a surface target so we shouldn't even try. I'm saying that we need to assess ship mounted guns realistically, to the best our ability.

Now, I may be wrong and I hope I am but until someone proves under realistic conditions that our faith in these magic weapons is justified, we need to inject some reality into our discussions. No shipboard gun in history, including up to the Mk45, has achieved anything remotely approaching "accuracy" under real world combat conditions. Why we think we've leaped into the world of hyper-accuracy is beyond me.

How does this pertain to the thread? We're asking whether we should add a Mk110 or a Mk38 (or whatever) when we should be asking "how many". I'm repeating myself but whatever you think you need, double or triple it.

The solution in the tanker war was the addition of the 25mm Mk38 mod0 guns. They had better range and more stopping power. The 25mm gun was added to the two 127mm/54 Mk45 mod2, four and single 0.5 cal M2 guns. It proved sufficient at the time. A faster firing 25mm Mk46 gun was added in the 1990s. The USN was then looking for gyro stabilized mounting for the Mk38 gun and it was developed jointly by the US and Israel. The new Mk38 mod2 gun like the Mk45 127mm and Mk75 76mm guns are gyro stabilized to compensate for the ship's rolling and other wave induced movements. It’s remotely operated. The 25mm Mk38 mod2 is being added to existing Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke ships. In addition the Ticonderogas and Arleigh Burkes have had or will have their Phalanx guns upgraded to the Block 1B standard. The 1B phalanx guns can fire on fast surface targets. At the same time the USN was looking for a more powerful weapon for new construction. A new 40mm gun similar to the Mk38 mod2 25mm was in development for DDX and LCS. The gun manufacturer also offered 57 mm cannon in place of the 40mm cannon. The 57mm gun was then evaluated by the USN and accepted. The 57mm offers greater range and stopping power than the 25mm and a large magazine and low manning requirements. You find most of this globalsecurity, navweaps, and www.naval-technology.com. These guns are not considered magic but have been judged to be the best solution. In the Gulf USN ships rarely operate by there lonesome. There is usually another friendly vessel in the vicinity. In the case of an attack the response is usually to fire air bursting shells from the 127mm guns. The air burst produces shrapnel which is rather painful to outright deadly to the crews of the open speed boats. When they get closer they are fired on by the 25mm guns and when hit either withdraw or sink. AH-1X Sea Cobra helicopters attack with 20mm or 25mm cannons and Hellfire missiles which during Praying Mantis incinerated more than a few speedboats.

At this time the USN has 4 M2 machine guns on each surface combatant, 2 Mk38 Mod2 25mm guns, 1 or 2 Phalanx 20mm Block 1B, and an assortment of lighter weapons for dealing with the small surface threats. SH-60B LAMPS III is being upgraded to MH-60R standard enabling them to fire Hellfire missiles if needed. In the Gulf also friendly land based aircraft are provided for the crossing through the Straits where the speed boat attacks usually happen. There is no perfect solution which is the nature of beast to begin with.

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

While that's a nice goal, it's shooting for the stars a little, the ships only carry 600 5" rounds. You want to increase the weight and volume consumed within the ship by a minimum of 3 times in ammunition alone? Even the big, giant Des Moines-class heavy cruisers only had 150 rounds per gun ad 450 per turret! That is something a currently configured Burke cannot support.

However, the gun was designed for ships smaller than the Burke, so there's no doubt it can physically fit and be incorporated into the ship's sytems. Stengthening of the bow would be necessary, and with the deep mag not featured on the Hull, a Burke could carry significantly more than the Hull. Consideration can be made to possibly incorporate two of the now vacated sonar compartments into the deep mag in order to enlarge the magazine capacity. Two sonar compartments are vacated now, because the upgrades to the ship's bow mounted sonar are reducing equipment to single spaces.

This would be weighing the ship down considerably. With my DDH, I am going with a longer hull to compensate for 64-cells forward instead of the 32 and the Mk71 with hopefully as large as a 600 round magazine. I am waiting to hear back from Dahlgren about the original Mk71 they have and what it carried aboard the Hull.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance