Calling all Arleigh Burke-class (DDG-51) fans

[Jeffcsr]

Were any transverse beams on the real boat buckled yet?

If you take a close look at close ups of the hulls, you will see that in very recent years large, the Navy has installed large patches of thicker steel on certain areas of the hull. It looks like spot armor, but it's not. The buckling has become so bad that the transverse bulkheads had to be repaired, and supplemental strength had to be added to the exterior of the ship.

I missed this, what beams are buckling and where is it visible? Is there a link to this conversation from elsewhere? I couldn't find it in this thread.

[Jeffcsr]

I googled and found out what the buckling is but still don't know what the visible changes are.

I thought these ships were supposed to be stronger than the Spruances they replaced since they are of 'steel' construction? I wonder how well they'll hold up when it's sinkex time for them

[Tracy White]

Given how Cole did, I think fairly well.

[navydavesof]

I missed this, what beams are buckling and where is it visible? Is there a link to this conversation from elsewhere? I couldn't find it in this thread.

No, there is no other link to this conversation. I was answering the question if the ships had suffered buckling of their transverse bulkheads yet. The answer is yes. They go into drydock, get sections of their hull's skin removed, their bulkheads repaired, and new, thicker hull fabricated and installed where the buckling occurred. This will hopefully keep the buckling from happening in the future. I specifically asked an SRF rep what these thicker pieces of steel were all about. There are extra stresses put on the bow because the sonar dome as it pitches through he waves. The hulls were not designed strong enough to take the stresses caused by the Pacific ocean.

I googled and found out what the buckling is but still don't know what the visible changes are.

You would have to get pictures of the ship pier side to be able to notice it. Lucky for you, I have taken pictures of this before.

Alsom you can always tell the thickness/weight of the steel by how smooth it is. These short and long patches all stand off the hull by at least 1/2"

Benfold was just in port, and I saw the same changes made to her. Near the bow and just forward of amidships you can see the thicker patches of steel on her hull. Look for large patches of steel approximately 40' long and raise 10' off the waterline just below the strength strake. The pieces raise off the hull by approximately 1/2". This would mean it is likely be 30-50lb steel. If you're building a model if it, a patch of primer laid down in those particular areas before you lay down the paint would do it.

I thought these ships were supposed to be stronger than the Spruances they replaced since they are of 'steel' construction? I wonder how well they'll hold up when it's sinkex time for them

The Spruance-class hulls were steel, too. Only their super structures were aluminum. The Burkes are nearly all steel construction. Their stacks and mast are aluminum, but the rest of the hull and super structure is steel.

There are 2 factors that make the Burkes "stronger", not necessarily "tougher". First, they use HY80 in their strength strakes around the rail of the ship. The second is that they are far beamier. Since they are wider ships, they inherently have more structural integrity. While this makes them a little "tougher", they would still lose combat capability (a "mission kill") just as fast as a Spruance. Because they're so short they have all of their sensors and weapon direction systems clustered together in the same area. Because the Ticonderoga-class CGs's weapon direction system is broken up into 2 different parts of the ship it would take twice as much damage to "mission kill" a CG than a DDG.

Given how Cole did, I think fairly well.

The Cole did not do very well...at all. There are unclassified reports of the damage done to the Cole on line to reference, and they are not favorable to the Burke design. Flooding control by the crew was the only thing that kept her from sinking. Even though Commander Lippold (the ship's CO at the time) tried to stay away from specific particulars in his book Front Burner, he still described the damage pretty thoroughly. Again, it was not favorable.

Extra information not dealing with the above questions:

Lack of long-term structural integrity and survivability is not an issue isolated to the Burkes. It's a problem associated with all "modern" combatants.

The reason why "modern" "war"ships are so fragile is because they still suffer from the early Cold War philosophy that "all future naval conflicts will be waged with nuclear weapons." This is a syndrome that has gotten worse as time has gone on and the corporate knowledge has retired and new people who don't know about the value of armor have taken their place. Norman Friedman described the "no need to armor" syndrome in his books US Cruisers and US Battleships very thoroughly. He describes that it was determined in the late 1950s that the only ships that could continue combat operations after a nearby nuclear detonation were ships with armored protection to the level of BB, CC, or CBs. The Navy decided that since it could not armor all of its ships to those levels, then there was no advantage to armoring ships at all. They did not believe conventional wars would happen again. The philosophy shifted to "address the threat before it closes to an effective range". The Talos/Terrier/Tartar missile family would shoot down any bomber well before it could attack the ships. Again, no need to armor the ships. As a result, "war"ships were no longer designed to take damage and continue the fight. All new ships were designed without armor and were instead only made water tight. Thus, in the "nuclear age", combatants were no longer built to survivability standards beyond navigation through heavy seas. Combatants have turned into buildings that have weapons systems on them and can drive around in the water.

Of course, we know this turned out to be an incorrect philosophy. Unfortunately with the loss of this corporate knowledge, people don't know how warships are supposed to react to weapons hits. They just assume that a cruise missile is the come-all-to-end-all. Instead, a Des Moines-class CA (a real warship) could absorb multiple cruise missile impacts or artillery hits and continue combat operations.

The Burke design tried to give a little bit of survivability back to the ships, but as we saw with the Cole, the DDG-51s are not all that survivable.

However, if you look at the DDG-51 Flight III designs from 1989, you will see that far greater survivability measures were taken. The strength strakes AND main deck were upgraded to HY-100. The hull was to be double hulled HY-80. Unfortunately, when the Flight IIA design was selected for construction instead of the Flight IIIs, they did not incorporate the survivability upgrades of the Flight III. The Flight IIIs that are currently being redesigned for the AMDR arrays are modified Flight IIAs, and there is not a lot of hope that they are any more survivable.

[veliko_pile]

Hi,
anyone have photos of some Arleigh Burke class during drydock? I need some shots of the general layout of drain holes, details, propellers, shaft and rudder.

Thanks

[Jeffcsr]

This is so cool I stumbled on a 1/700 Dragon USS Roosevelt on eBay so I snagged it. I thought It would be a long time before I got a flight IIa ship and now that I have one I can add one more build to my already cramped table.

I like the low-profile exhaust stacks on the newest models could I duplicate them by just plating over this kits exhausts or are there more differences to the superstructure tops?

[maxim]

There is also a Dragon kit containing the new stack tops, e.g. Mustin.

BUT: the Dragon kit does not depict a Flight IIA correctly! The hangar is way too short, the hull is too short, the after VLS is too small etc.

I would recommend to wait for the new HobbyBoss kit of USS Momsen DDG-92 or USS Forrest Sherman DDG-98. These are probably correct and the details are much better.

Here some photos of my conversion of Dragon's kit of USS Mustin:

[Timmy C]

Next series of Burkes to be called Flight IIA: Technology Insertion, to begin with Hudner 116 and ending with 121. 122 will be the start of Flight III: http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articl ... essor.html

[navydavesof]

Next series of Burkes to be called Flight IIA: Technology Insertion, to begin with Hudner 116 and ending with 121. 122 will be the start of Flight III: http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articl ... essor.html

The current DDG-51s with hangars are Flight IIAs. I guess there will be no designation difference? Will sailors say, "I'm on a Flight IIA: Technology Insertion"?

Silly Navy!

[Jeffcsr]

Are the Flight IIIs going to look similar to the IIa's or will they have a significant external change?

[navydavesof]

Are the Flight IIIs going to look similar to the IIa's or will they have a significant external change?

So far, it's only a small difference in the radars, and maybe the AGS(L) will be installed in place of the Mk45 5" gun. Everything else will unfortunately be the same.

[Rick E Davis]

Quote: The current DDG-51s with hangars are Flight IIAs. I guess there will be no designation difference? Will sailors say, "I'm on a Flight IIA: Technology Insertion"?

Dave,

This is easy ... since it is a "Technology Insertion" ... they should be called ... FLIGHT IIA 2.0 ... :-0

[akulaman]

Can anyone tell if the USS Mitscher DDG-57 is a Flight l or Flight ll. Thanks for the info in advance, Jim.

[Cliffy B]

Flight I, II started with DDG-72.

[Sciquest2525]

Can Flight IV correct the problems that have been pointed in the lack of armour of the AB? And yes, it is Flight IV which enter service in the 2020s time frame.

[navydavesof]

Can Flight IV correct the problems that have been pointed in the lack of armour of the AB? And yes, it is Flight IV which enter service in the 2020s time frame.

A Flight IV has not been designed yet. What are you talking about? If you're talking about making something up, then maybe...because you can make anything up and call it a "Flight IV" if it resembles the DDG-51 or not. What do you have in mind?

The Flight III design will have all of the ship's growth margin will be consumed by the weight of the AMDR arrays. They won't be able to add anything significant to these ships once they're built.

It is looking more and more likely that there won't be a Flight III with AMDR and instead the AMDR will be installed on specialized LPD-17 hulls armed with VLS or an Observation Island style ship that is dedicated to the radar and has no weapons and will relay its radar immagry to the shooters in the group.



More pictures:
http://www.zeably.com/USNS_Observation_ ... (T-AGM-23)

[modellmariner]

Here is the new model of the USS Lassen DDG-82 from Hobby Boss. A Flight IIA version in 1 / 700.
The dimensions and proportions are correct.

Included is a sprue F. It contains parts which suggest that a version Block V will appear.


J�rg

[modellmariner]

Hobby Boss has also announced the USS Momsen DDG-92.

J�rg

[Peter H]

Hi All

Just a quick question that I haven't been able to find an answer or picture for?

I have 2 X Trumpeter 1/350 Burke's (USS Lassen, that I may change to Winston Churchill, and USS Momsen)

Ordered some LED lights / wires etc but am looking for info if my colour "thought" is correct?

Bridge: "Green"
Hanger Bays: Yellow or Orange"

Any help or assistance would be much appreciated.
(I have seen lots of 1/350 Nimitz class and Wasp class models with leds and look great, but I would like to be accurate.

Thanks in advance.

Peter Hoskins
Sydney, AU

[Garry71]

DDG-82 Lassen in Vladivostok today:



What is it? Parking device?