USN Warship Numbers: What is ideal? (re-titled)

[carr]

..

[carr]

..

[carr]

..

[Admiral John Byng]

There is an interesting article on the Burkes in the new edition of World Naval Review and it says that the US Navy was concerned that its surface ships were not as good at seakeeping as some of its allies and more particularly those of the Soviet Union and so it studied the Soviet ships and incorporated some features in the design. They also incorporated the Italian "stern wedge" into the ABs.

Given that, I suspect the Spruance and Kidd designs are not considered suitable for US Navy service any more. It also says that the USN wanted a longer hull but cost concerns ruled that out.

[carr]

..

[navydavesof]

@ navydavesof:

Oy!

You said that the Spruance class uses aluminium for the superstructure, which is lighter than steel. True. But the superstructure of a Spruance is also much larger. Do you know if the superstructure of a Spruance weights more or less than a Arleigh Burke superstructure? The material alone does not answer that question (I do not know the answer). It was your argument that the material would indicate that the Spruance hull has more volume even though the displacement is less.

Indeed, the Spruace/Kidd/Ticos all have significantly more internal space to that of the Burkes. The DDG-51 DDV Helo study stated that only the original DDG-51 Flight IIIs would have comparable internal volume to the Spruance/Kidd/Ticos. BTW, a DDG-51 could be equipped with a Mk71 with 204 8" rounds in the magazine and 75 in the ready service loader resulting in 279 8" rounds in a DDG. Is that worth it to the guy on the ground or a strike operation?

Oh, yes.

[maxim]

Indeed, the Spruace/Kidd/Ticos all have significantly more internal space to that of the Burkes. The DDG-51 DDV Helo study stated that only the original DDG-51 Flight IIIs would have comparable internal volume to the Spruance/Kidd/Ticos.

If the old Flight III would have a similar internal volume than the Sprunce/Kidd/Ticonderoga, the internal volume of the Flight IIA cannot be so much smaller. The length would be 166 m vs. 155 m. For sure the extra length would have allowed two 64 cell VLS. The original Flight III would have displaced 10.722 t - far in excess of the fully modernised Spruance class and in excess of the Ticonderoga class (they are longer, 173 m, but have much less beam).

BTW, a DDG-51 could be equipped with a Mk71 with 204 8" rounds in the magazine and 75 in the ready service loader resulting in 279 8" rounds in a DDG. Is that worth it to the guy on the ground or a strike operation?

It would replace a multi-purpose gun with a single use gun. In addition, the Mk 71 is obviously not longer considered, because the Zumwalt class got for that purpose the 155 mm L/62.

And again: the old Flight III design (or the new Flight III design) as well as 8" guns (or 155 mm guns) would increase costs - the opposite to a requirement for more ships. More ships are only realistic with cheaper ships. Otherwise it would be fewer ships.

[carr]

..

[maxim]

I simply assumed that a larger gun costs more than a smaller gun produced already in large numbers since decades.

But that was not my main point (you have not quoted half of the sentence). Also the current version of the Arleigh Burke Flight III with the 5" gun is too expensive for a larger fleet.

[carr]

..

[carr]

..

[navydavesof]

does the current 5" guns still have aa capability as I don't think so I agree, what multi-purpose?

No, it does not. It is anti-surface and NSFS.

[InchHigh]

The 5" guns have an AAW capability, always have. Any 5" round with a "VT" (variable time) in it's description is a proximity round, which was originally developed in WWII as an AA fuse to replace mechanically timed fuses. Various studies concluded that the VT round improved lethality by approximately a factor of seven.

5"/54 & 5"/62 info here: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_displ ... d=575&ct=2

[carr]

..

[navydavesof]

The 5" guns have an AAW capability, always have. Any 5" round with a "VT" (variable time) in it's description is a proximity round, which was originally developed in WWII as an AA fuse to replace mechanically timed fuses. Various studies concluded that the VT round improved lethality by approximately a factor of seven.

5"/54 & 5"/62 info here: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_displ ... d=575&ct=2

Indeed, let me correct myself. Both the Mk71 and the Mk45 have advertised AAW capabilities. There are VT fuses. Yes, the projectiles can blow up in the air. Neither actually can reliable engage air targets. The main reason behind this is because the vast majority of air targets now travel far faster than the gun can respond. The USN has refused to procure guided projectiles that could change that. One of the first guided projectiles was a radar guided AAW round developed in the mid 1950's. Like all guided projectiles made available to the USN, the USN has refused to procure any.

[carr]

..

[maxim]

The 5" gun had the advantage of faster firing, also on other targets as planes. But I read somewhere that the L/62 variant is slower firing compared to the L/54, which would decrease its advantage.

I for sure know that the ammunition of the 155 mm gun is not existing, because it got to expensive after the reduction of the Zumwalt class to just three ships. I mentioned only that after the cancellation of the Mk 71 in 1978 (nearly 40 years ago, more than a generation ago, so much to the glorification of technology from the distant past), the US Navy bought a new gun for that purpose, the 155 mm. The navy did not revive the old Mk 71.

That the 155 mm gun can not fire the standard 155 mm NATO ammunition is a scandal.

But please remember the topic: more ships. It does not make sense to talk about more sophisticated, i.e. more expensive ships here. And for sure it is logical to expect a larger gun of otherwise similar design to be more expensive than a smaller gun, which is already produced in numbers. If would have be very surprising if a Mk 71 would have been cheaper than the Mk 45 - especially because the cancellation of the Mk 71 is usually described to have been justified by costs. Costs are likely also very relevant for the US Navy in the near future, if the tax reductions will be executed. Less taxes and a larger fleet are economically not compatible (especially for a already heavily indebted state).

[carr]

..

[maxim]

Again: for more ships cheaper ships are necessary. Nobody had argued her that they should be equipped with the AGS...

By the way: the current 5" gun is based on a design from 1968, the 8" Mk 71 was designed in 1971.

(The Mk 71 could fire 12 rounds per minute, even slower than the slow 5" Mk 45, the Otobreda 127mm/54 Compact can fire 40 rounds per minute, the Oto Melara 127/64 LW can fire 32 round per minute).

[carr]

..