The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 5:46 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat May 29, 2010 9:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
Excellent, Bob, excellent! This is exactly what I had in mind. I will have to incorporate it into the design as best I can.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 31, 2010 12:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
David,

I saw a post here, today, from you with a long list of comments. The post seems to have vanished. In any event, here's a quick mock up of a low end Burke. A low end Burke would have shallow water ASW and NSFS as primary missions. AAW is not a mission, only a means of self-defense and, therefore, does not require Aegis or 9000 VLS cells.

Notes:
1. Forward VLS removed and Mk45 (optionally Mk71 if structurally capable) added with second Mk45 on raised platform.
2. NTU (or less) radar suite.
3. Single, centerline hangar.
4. CIWS and Harpoon in recessed areas port/starboard of hangar, created by "walling in".
5. LF sonar, or whatever shallow water ASW fit the Navy actually has (as opposed to the LCS wish-list that's never going to happen), if any.
6. Not shown, but there are places to stick a RAM or possibly a Mk110, though if cost is the driving force, these may not make sense.

Food for thought.

Regards,
Bob

Attachment:
Burke Low End.jpg


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 31, 2010 2:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
Carr,

That was my mistake! Sometimes no matter how many times the system asks you if you are sure you want to do something, like, "are you sure you want to delete?" and "are you really sure you want to delete?" it still happens. :Mad_5:

Thanks for your picture. This is very interesting. I am a huge fan of the VLS arraangement. I have always wondered about this, and I just saw Spain is doing it or something with this picture.
Attachment:
12406.jpg
12406.jpg [ 106.1 KiB | Viewed 1692 times ]

I know there are control stations on the sides of the VLS modules that would cause arrangement problems, but I am willing to bet those stations can be moved around to accommodate such an arrangement.

I am cutting a lot of plastic and making a lot of alterations for both the reduced cost Burke and the Flight III. I am anxious to get more progress and pictures up.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 31, 2010 2:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
Dave,

I think I scaled that hangar fairly wide. It could probably be narrower which would provide more room for the VLS. Alternatively, the VLS, which is arranged in the traditional 4-cells wide by 2-cells long (meaning fore and aft), could be rotated 90 deg so that the modules were 2-cells wide by 4-cells long. That would provide plenty of room for control stations on the side, or whatever. In that arrangement, you'd probably cut the total in half to give 32 cells total. That's probably more than enough for the intended mission.

You know, the Burke hull is pretty large for the relatively few capabilities that a low end version requires. A smaller hull would probably do just fine. I know that steel is the cheapest part of a build, however, it's still not free. This, of course, leads to your Gearing hull, or something similar.

I wonder if the low end Burke capabilities could fit into one of the LCS designs? As an LCS, they're worthless but maybe if you sliced the entire superstructure off and redesigned from the main deck up as well as gut the hull interior and install a reasonable propulsion system, you might be able to package the capabilities into a smaller hull. Of course, you'd still have the survivability issue ... In essence, you'd keep only the hull form itself. I wonder if the LCS hull form is significantly cheaper than the Burke hull form?

Anyway, looking forward to seeing more plastic!

Regards,
Bob


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 12:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
Hey, guys,

I am working on the above mentioned Flight IB and Flight III ships lately. I have a bit of work done. This is what I am modifying the ships to be:

Flight IB:
Improved NTU (INTU)
SPS-49(V)5
SPS-48G
SPS-67
SPQ-9B
SPG-51E
96-cell strike-length VLS
16 Harpoons
2 Phalanx IB
2 RAM
2 Mk38 Mod2
2 Mk32 Torpedo Tubes
1 SH-60 (and single hanger)
1 embarked UAV detachment (6 ScanEagleIB UAVs)
6 SRBOC
4 NULKA
1 Mk71 Mod2 8"/60caliber gun
2 Mk110 57mm guns
750 tones of deck and side armor to resist against missile, field artillery, and boat attacks.
(edit)

Flight III
The same as above with the ADDITION of:
Aegis SPY-1D(v)5 (in place ofNTU radars and directors)
4 SPG-67
2 Mk71 Mod2 8"/60caliber guns
Enclosed (?) Mk32 triple torpedo tubes
128 VLS tubes
2 SH-60 helo hanger
a whole lot of money...but not as much as the Navy wants to spend.

Does anyone have any other ideas for this kind of ship?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
navydavesof wrote:
Does anyone have any other ideas for this kind of ship?

Are you familiar with the Outboard intel units that were mounted on Spruances? According to Capt. Potter's book, they were quite successful. I've been trying to determine what the current version of this is, if any. If there is still an equivalent, that might be something to consider adding. On the Spruances, it consisted of a series of antennas placed around the deck edges, among other components, and was used for radio intercepts and other intel. I've had no luck finding any definitive info on current versions.

Regards,
Bob


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 12:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:28 pm
Posts: 2126
Location: Egg Harbor Twp, NJ
Hey Guys, Gals too if there any out there,

Before discussion gets into the weapons shot capacity of Burkes, or any other class, for that matter, lets take a look at what's coming down the sea lanes in the way of advances in the way ships are replenished at sea.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/New_Nav ... g_999.html
New Navy crane technology passes testing

A Large Vessel Interface Lift-on/Lift-off
by Staff Writers
Washington (UPI) Jun 2, 2010
U.S. Navy officials say they have completed multiphase testing of new crane technology designed for at-sea, ship-to-ship cargo transfers.

The Large Vessel Interface Lift On/Lift Off technology demonstration completed in the Gulf of Mexico last month marked a major milestone in cargo transfer capabilities, officials said.

The testing involved the transfer of 128 containers from one ship to another with waves of up 3 feet in height. Operators picked up and placed down an unobstructed container, lifted a container obstructed on several sides and lowered containers into obstructed "holes," officials said.

Attachment:
large-vessel-interface-lift-on-lift-offlvi-lolo-crane-lg.jpg
large-vessel-interface-lift-on-lift-offlvi-lolo-crane-lg.jpg [ 15.95 KiB | Viewed 1671 times ]


I think the last sentence is most significant because, if you can drop a container into an obstructed hole, you can drop a weapons pod into or pull an empty out of an obstructed cell or launcher.

_________________
Russ


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
Wow. Unless that crane in the picture can extend a long ways out, the two ships involved must have been awfully close together. I'm not in the Navy so I don't know for sure but don't ships undergoing refueling/replenishment normally maintain a separation of a hundred feet or so? My understanding is that there is a "suction" force that pulls ships together if they get too close alongside. Was this testing performed with two ships that were stationary, perhaps? The article doesn't say one way or another.

Regardless, the article doesn't make clear what a "hole" is. It's one thing to drop a box into a cargo hold or down a hatch with sufficient clearance, it's another to drop a VLS cell into an opening that has a clearance on the order of an inch, from what I've seen in pictures.

On a possibly related note, the Navy has dropped the onboard reload cranes from the VLS system presumably because they wouldn't work at sea on a moving vessel.

This sounds like a great way to transfer bulk cargo but doesn't strike me as a VLS reload technology. It would be great if it could, though! I'd love to be wrong.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:28 pm
Posts: 2126
Location: Egg Harbor Twp, NJ
My thought is that this is the initial step in development.
It worked with 3' waves. The two ships were not underway, but that did not eliminate wave surgeof the two ships.
As a cargo type when I wore the Army uniform, I can tell you that there is no difference between lowering a standard container into a container cell on ship and lowering a missile pod into a cell. If the launcher configuration of Harpoons and Tomahawks were changed to something similar to the Army's MLRS approach, you could swap them out too.

BTW, the cargo holds that you envision are a thing of the past. Today its either RORO or Container.

The problem with cargo transfer between two floating platforms has always been swaying of the cargo and the landing of cargo on the receiving vessal, the one without the crane, without smashing the cargo into the deck as the ships bobbed up and down with respect to each other. This crane appears to be a big step in solving the problem.

_________________
Russ


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 3:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
Russ2146 wrote:
My thought is that this is the initial step in development.

So how would this apply to the NTU Burke Flight IB ships?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 7:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:28 pm
Posts: 2126
Location: Egg Harbor Twp, NJ
That is entirely dependant on funding of further developement and deployment of the crane along with modification of the weapons suite to allow efficient rearming of the suite at sea or sheltered harbor without any shore facilities.

In a combat scenario, a depleted weapons suite makes for an unarmed ship. How far do you want to travel to get rearmed? Well Admiral, does the situation permit you the time to send a couple of your ships off to where ever?. Do you wish the weaps and ships designers had thought of that before the need became critical?

_________________
Russ


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 6:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:28 pm
Posts: 2126
Location: Egg Harbor Twp, NJ
From strategypage.com:
Fixing The Empty Cell Blues
June 14, 2010: Thanks to Iranian and North Korean ballistic missiles, the U.S. Navy is now scrambling for a way to enable its warships to reload their missile launch tubes at sea. For over two decades, this was not seen as a priority. But with the widespread use of the Aegis anti-missile system on ships, and the prospect of having to shoot down a lot of hostile ballistic missiles, while also fending off hostile aircraft, the need for reloading VLS cells at sea is now, well, important.
Over the last three decades, the United States, and later several other nations, have adopted the eight cell VLS (Vertical Launch System), where anti-aircraft, anti-ship or cruise missiles are launched directly from the vertical launch tubes (cells) just beneath the decks of warships. The launch tubes also contain electronic connections that enable the crew to monitor the condition and readiness of the missiles. Most cells contain only one missile, although the smaller Sea Sparrow anti-aircraft missile can fit four to a VLS cell. Since 1982, over 11,000 VLS cells have been installed in nearly 200 American and foreign warships. The most common VLS user is the American Burke class destroyer, with 90 VLS cells. A smaller number of cruisers have 122 VLS cells each. Some of the older Spruance class destroyers got 61 VLS cells.

In the 1980s, there was some debate over the need for an at-sea reloading capability. A system was developed, but it meant losing six cells (three for the forward VLS cells, and three for the ones aft, in the rear of the ship). This crane system was dropped, so that the ships could use more cells for missiles. Back then, it was believed that any future war would mainly be a series of hard fought initial battles, when every VLS cell counted. But with ballistic missile defense, an Aegis ship might only be carrying 20-30 Aegis guided anti-missile missiles (the rest being anti-aircraft), and you might not want to send that ship all the way back to a base that could reload the VLS tubes.

At the moment, Aegis anti-missile systems are hot. The U.S. government, encouraged by the high success rate (83 percent) of Aegis SM-3 missiles to shooting down ballistic missiles, has been expanding the number of SM-3 equipped ships. With 18 Aegis anti-missile equipped ships in service now, and plans to have more than twice as many in the next few years.

Converting Aegis ships to fire anti-missile missiles costs about $12 million a ship, mainly for new software and a few new hardware items. This is seen as a safe investment. To knock down ballistic missile, Aegis uses two similar models of the U.S. Navy Standard anti-aircraft missile, in addition to a modified version of the Aegis radar system, tweaked to also track incoming ballistic missiles.

Now the government wants to use Aegis more aggressively to block Iranian or North Korean ballistic missiles. This means buying over a thousand SM-3 missiles. These currently cost about $10 million each, and the next upgrade (which will deliver more accuracy and reliability) will raise that to $15 million each. While the expanded Aegis program will cost about $20 billion, it's seen as the cheapest way to provide reliable anti-missile defense against Iran and North Korea.

The basic anti-missile missile RIM-161A, also known as the Standard Missile 3 (or SM-3). It has a range of over 500 kilometers and max altitude of over 160 kilometers. The Standard 3 is based on the anti-missile version of the Standard 2 (SM-2 Block IV). This SM-2 missile turned out to be effective against ballistic missile warheads that are closer to their target. One test saw a SM-2 Block IV missile destroy a warhead that was only 19 kilometers up. An SM-3 missile can destroy a warhead that is more than 200 kilometers up. But the SM-3 is only good for anti-missile work, while the SM-2 Block IV can be used against both ballistic missiles and aircraft. The SM-2 Block IV also costs less than half what an SM-3 costs.

The SM-3 has four stages. The first two boost the interceptor out of the atmosphere. The third stage fires twice to boost the interceptor farther beyond the earth's atmosphere. Prior to each motor firing it takes a GPS reading to correct course for approaching the target. The fourth stage is the 20 pound LEAP kill vehicle, which uses infrared sensors to close on the target and ram it. The Aegis system was designed to operate aboard warships (cruisers and destroyers that have been equipped with the special software that enables the AEGIS radar system to detect and track incoming ballistic missiles). However, there is also a land based version that Israel is interested in buying.

_________________
Russ


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 8:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
This is an interesting article, Russ! Again good find. I have not been able to really go through that site too much yet. However, with the NTU Flight IB Burke, it would not be shooting down ballistic missiles. My version of the Flight III, however, would, if that addition is indeed only a $12million upgrade. A new CG, a high-end ship, would need to have such a load-out. I am curious about several of the statements in this article, however.

Russ2146 wrote:
...Thanks to Iranian and North Korean ballistic missiles, the U.S. Navy is now scrambling for a way to enable its warships to reload their missile launch tubes at sea...

This is the first I have heard of it. I am no ultimate authority on the subject, but I have been around all of the "new hot technologies" that people want to sell the Navy. I think that if the Navy really was "now scrambling for a way to enable its warships to reload...at sea" there would be more indications, like models and mock-ups beign advertized. 'Just saying.

Quote:
...With 18 Aegis anti-missile equipped ships in service now, and plans to have more than twice as many in the next few years.
I think what the author is trying to say is "...with 18 Aegis ships modified for the Anti-Ballistic Missile mission in service now..." Every CG and DDG we have has Aegis on it...and that's a lot more than 18 ships.

Quote:
Converting Aegis ships to fire anti-missile missiles costs about $12 million a ship, mainly for new software and a few new hardware items.
All of the Aegis ships shoot "anti-missile missiles". The threat Aegis is best for today is shooting down missiles. Maybe what the author meant to say was "Converting Aegis ships to fire anti-ballistic missiles...". There is a big difference between standard shooting down cruise missiles and ballistic missiles.

Quote:
Now the government wants to use Aegis more aggressively to block Iranian or North Korean ballistic missiles. This means buying over a thousand SM-3 missiles...These currently cost about $10 million each, and the next upgrade (which will deliver more accuracy and reliability) will raise that to $15 million each.
...1,000?! Super rockin' awesome sweet! A $15BILLION purchase of missiles?! WOW!


Quote:
While the expanded Aegis program will cost about $20 billion, it's seen as the cheapest way to provide reliable anti-missile defense against Iran and North Korea.
Do we know how the Aegis program is going to be expanded by $20Billion? Is that new construction, because the conversion of existing ships to ABM won't amount to that much.

This is pretty fascinating. The technique you suggested, Russ, about modifying the existing VLS to be more like the Army tubes is pretty pricy and time consuming. Unless the modifications were going to be very minor, I don't think the Navy would do it. They certainly won't pull modules. They would rather the ships sprint to Bahrain (If they are in the Persian Gulf) and reload and come back. I think cost, time to install, and how much capacity are you going to sacrifice to accommodate reloading at sea?

Just a thought to this one :wave_1: HOWEVER, if there were a way for ships to reload their missiles at sea it would be SO cool!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 9:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
I've read samples of the writings at strategypage.com for some time and I've found the articles to range from fascinating to obvious but with, generally, a high level of mistakes (or just poor writing - it's sometimes hard to tell the difference, as Dave pointed out) and a lack of understanding of basic naval concepts. Frequently, it's not obvious who the authors are. I suspect that the writers are average munchkins like most of us, as opposed to Navy or industry insiders. Nothing wrong with that but it does mean that their ideas have no more credibility than what's found on this forum. Thus, the articles range from insightful to ridiculous - leaning more towards the ridiculous side. Just my assessment, for what it's worth.

Regards,
Bob


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 9:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
carr wrote:
Thus, the articles range from insightful to ridiculous - leaning more towards the ridiculous side. Just my assessment, for what it's worth.

Regards,
Bob

:thumbs_up_1:

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 9:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:55 pm
Posts: 3125
Location: Hawaii
navydavesof wrote:
Quote:
Now the government wants to use Aegis more aggressively to block Iranian or North Korean ballistic missiles. This means buying over a thousand SM-3 missiles...These currently cost about $10 million each, and the next upgrade (which will deliver more accuracy and reliability) will raise that to $15 million each.

...1,000?! Super rockin' awesome sweet! A $15BILLION purchase of missiles?! WOW!


SM-3's cost $10 MILLION A PIECE????!!! WTF???!!!! That's gotta be a typo... :twitch:

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 8:28 am
Posts: 16
navydavesof wrote:
Hi guys,

First, I would like to thank all of you guys to this point. The other posts I have made have concerning the Iowa-class battleships, the modernized Spruance-class DDs turning them into DDGs, and a few other things. I would like to thank Captain Potter, Charles Landrum, Carr, SumGui, Seasick, etc. All of you guys have provided a lot of useful input both pro and cons (seasick) toward my various conceptions. The next project will be two ships. Both of these ships will be actual proposals to the Navy for future ship procurement. Like I said with my other suggestions before, I already have an accurate idea of what I want but I want to hear, however, what you might have in mind about the following can go a long way:

Flight III Arleigh Burke (CG-74)
And
Reduced Cost Arleigh Burke Flight IA (DDG-118)

Both of these designs will be suggestions made directly to the CNO (Admireal Gary Roughead) for consideration for future procurement.

So, as I have done before, the mission statements are as follows:

Flight III:
The first 5 Ticonderoga-class CGs have been decommissioned (in addition to the sacrifice of the entire Spruance-class destroyer (DD)to favor funding toward DDG-1000) and have to be replaced as soon as possible. The replacements have to accomplish the same mission requirements as the Ticos:
-AAW
-ASW
-AWuW (massive numbers of Harpoons?)
-NSFS
-Flag facilities
…and the following…
-Survivability against moderate missile threats, suicide bombers both small boat and surface explosions such as home grown terrorists like Maj. Kassan, mine strikes, and a reasonable chance to survive a torpedo attack.
-Layered CIWS (phalanx, RAM, and ESSM)
-UAV support and maintenance


Arleigh Burke Light:
-AAW system that is really good but not Aegis. Aegis costs too much, no question, so we need a cheaper version that does everything but the highest end features of Aegis.
-CIWS (phalanx and RAM)
-UAV/RPV storage and maintenance facilities

Concerning "protection" above, let's begin to incorporate various additions of armor again. I seem to understand that we went away from armor because we were concerned about having nuclear exchances at sea, and the only to survive a nuclear exchange at sea is to be in a battleship. Well, we can't build a bunch of battleships so instead, we removed all protection...until we realized we are still going to have conventional battles at sea (Friedman's US Destroyers 2nd edition). Then came the Burkes, and those have begun to step back into the rhelm of survivability.

For this exercise, let's base both designs on the Arleigh Burke-class, and hopefully we can meet both the low-end DDG and high-end CG ships.

Beyond the Burke-class hull are there any designs people have in mind that might meet the designs or any extra requirements you might foresee?

Thanks, guys!

-navydavesof


For the Flight III, obviously, what you're going to want to have is an incremental increase in capability over the Ticonderoga-class (CG-47), both in terms of sensors and weaponry. Latest Aegis systems go without saying. But you'll want larger magazine capacities than the CG-47s. You'll want equal or great gunfire support capability, so at least two Mk 45 5in/62s.

RAM as opposed to CIWS in CG-47.

For opposing small craft, I would propose two 25mm Bushmasters in the Mk 38 mount. I don't really see a role for the Mk 110 on such a ship.

I would estimate that the Flight IIIs will be much more stable than the CG-47s which were very top-heavy, so that in itself is an enhancement.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group