i'm new in this forum and of course --arleigh burke fan.
my current project is to build a ddg destroyer preferentially flight I on a scale of 1:75.
currently i am searching detailed ship plans or drawings.
it seems very difficult to found such things.
anybody got some tipps or conections for me ?
thanks in advance !
Volker
Plans, a 1:72 fibreglass hull and numerous parts to make a Flight 2 Burke are available from APS Models in Australia. (apsmods at bigpond.net.au)
The differences are significant, however the alteration from Flight 2 to Flight 1 is not impossible.
The Irreplaceable Burkes
January 5, 2010: Sometimes a weapon comes along that is too damn useful to replace. One outstanding example is the Sidewinder air-to-air missile. Another is the M-16 (5.56mm) rifle. Both have been around for over half a century, and no one can come up with a clearly superior replacement. Same thing is happening in the U.S. Navy, where attempts to replace the Arleigh Burke class destroyers have met with failure.
The navy put much effort into developing a successor for the Burke. But, in the end, the navy could only justify building, at most, three of the new DDG-1000 class ships. Instead, they resumed building Arleigh Burke class destroyers. It's a matter of cost, and effectiveness. The new DDG-1000 destroyers (and slightly larger versions designated as cruisers) would cost more than $4 billion each if built in large quantities. The Burkes cost a billion dollars each. The last of 62 Burkes was ordered in 2002 and is under construction. Another Burke will begin construction next year, and more will be built over the next decade.
Meanwhile, the navy will buy some time (about a decade) by upgrading dozens of existing destroyers and cruisers. This is a bitter pill to swallow, as only eight years ago, the navy was so sure about the new DDG-1000, that it accelerated the retirement of a dozen of the 31 Spruance class destroyers, in order to save the $28 million a year it would cost to keep each of them in service. These ships were not just retired, they were all either broken up, or sunk in training exercises. The dozen that entered service between 1979-83 could have been refurbished and been available until 2019. That's a lost opportunity. But what can now be done is refurb the Burke class destroyers (which began entering service in the 1990s). Most of the Ticonderoga class cruisers (which entered service in the 1980s and 90s) can use the refurb as well, which could boost their service into the 2030s. This, plus building a dozen or more Burke class destroyers will be built.
The refurb policy will cost about $200 million per destroyer (and 20-25 percent more for the cruisers). Normally, these ships get one refurb during their 30 year lives. This not only fixes lots of things that have broken down or worn out (and been patched up), but installs lots of new technology. A second refurb is expected to add another 5-10 years of serviceability. But this special refurb will do more than that. The navy wants to add some of the DDG-1000 technology to these older ships. In particular, the navy wants to install the "smart ship" type automation (found in civilian ships for decades) that will enable crew size to be reduced. The "smart ship" gear also includes better networking and power distribution. In effect, the ship would be rewired. This could reduce the crew size by 20-30 percent (current destroyers have a crew of 320, with the cruisers carrying 350). In addition to considerable cost savings (over $100,000 a year per sailor), a smaller crew takes up less space, enabling the smaller crew to have more comfortable living quarters. This is a big deal as far as morale and retention (getting people to stay in the navy) goes. Most other new items are not space dependent, except for some of the power based ones (like the rail gun). But these technologies are receding farther into the future. Right now the navy has to find a way to live within its budget, and refurbishing existing warships shows more promise than trying build affordable new ones.
But the navy can afford more Burkes because this is a design that is the culmination of over half a century of World War II and Cold War experience. The Burkes were well thought out, sturdy and they got the job done. They became irreplaceable, and thus this class of warships will last more than half a century.
Fascinating post, Russ! The Burke has done a pretty good job for what she is so far! I wonder if the author of that article knows that the Burkes were a low-cost compromise instead of building more of the more capable Ticonderoga-class cruisers.
The authors on that site aren't identified so its hard to say.
They also have an article about how Taiwan wants our used FFGs.
Can't Get Enough Of Perry
January 15, 2010: The Taiwanese Navy wants to buy eight more used Perry class frigates from the United States, and equip them with an Aegis air defense system. The Perry's are 4,100 ton ships that have a crew of 220 and are normally armed with a 76mm gun, six tubes for launching Mk 46 anti-submarine torpedoes, and a 20mm auto cannon as anti-missile defense. As built, the Perry's has a missile launcher for SM-1 anti-aircraft or Harpoon anti-ship missiles (from a 40 missile magazine), but these were removed from all U.S. Perrys in 2004. This was done because U.S. allies needed the dwindling supply of SM-1 missiles more than U.S. ships did. The SH-60 helicopters carried by the Perrys could still use their smaller Penguin anti-ship missiles. The Perrys have air search radar and sonar, and can carry two helicopters. Top speed is 55 kilometers an hour. If built today, the Perry's would cost about $300 million each.
The Taiwanese government needs to do something about its surface force, which now consist of 20 old, former U.S. Navy, destroyers and frigates, and six French frigates, which entered service in the 1990s. The U.S. is retiring its remaining Perrys, and has the capability to refurbish and upgrade them. It is currently doing this for a Perry that is going to Pakistan. (You think maybe some of those Spruance class might have been sold instead of trashed??)
And then there's this one:
The Incredible Shrinking American Fleet
June 2, 2010: The U.S. Navy has shrunk by 20 percent in the last decade, to a force of 280 ships. The main reason is the high cost of new ships, to replace those that are wearing out and being retired. In the next decade, the fleet is expected to shrink another 20 percent, again because Congress refuses to provide enough money to replace older ships (only about $14 billion a year, at most, is provided for new ships, and this is expected to shrink.) New ships cost, on average, $2.5 billion each. This is made possible because of six billion dollar destroyers, seven billion dollar subs and eleven billion dollar carriers. This is offset somewhat by $1.7 billion amphibious ships and half billion dollar LCS (a little, controversial, ship design).
The U.S. Department of Defense leadership has concluded that the current mix of ships, and naval strategies they support, cannot be sustained. It's not like this sort of thing has not happened before. This would be the third time in a century that the naval world was transformed by new technology. A century ago, the new "all big gun" battleship design had made all existing fleets obsolete. At the same time these new battleships appeared, so did aircraft. Three decades later, the aircraft carrier made the battleship obsolete. Now cruise missiles , UAVs and all manner of new sensors, software and electronics are threatening the aircraft carrier. If you go back and read the popular and professional media at the time of the last two transformations, you will note a lot of uncertainty about whether it was really a transforming moment. That is the case now, but the issue is heating up because the current carrier-centric navy is simply unaffordable. This includes the large amphibious ships (which carry helicopters and vertical takeoff aircraft, and look like carriers.)
The future of the navy is still being debated, but meanwhile, the fleet is fading into something else, and something smaller, no matter what is done. This does not mean that 70 years of American naval domination will end any time soon. The U.S. fleet is still larger than the next twelve largest fleets combined. In terms of naval combat power and capability, the U.S. still possesses most of what is available on the planet. What is rapidly changing is the cost of maintaining these capabilities, and the willingness of Americans to pay for it. The Department of Defense leadership is calling for a reexamination of how the naval domination is used, possible alternative approaches, and new ideas in general.
Okay. . .maybe I continue to miss it, but I have failed to find the second circular SATCOM dish that come with the Pitroad & DML Arleigh Burke kits!!
Initially, they were P&S on the bridge top. By 2004, the port dish was located in front and directly below the bridge. Where is the second one located?! I have looked at numerous pictures of DDG-66, 77, 83 and 89 looking for its location. I do wear glasses and I am old. . .my excuse for missing the thing!!!
Recently Harpoons have been added to at least one Flight IIA Burke. I have not been able to get a picture of the ship, but I have photoshopped what it looks like for public consumption. I think this is a fantastic idea a few of us have had for a while, and it turns out this arrangement was the standard fit for the Flight III Burke proposal in 1989. I am glad they have finally implemented it.
To any onlookers this would make a kick-ass model....maybe mstazz62 ? Maybe? Hmmmm?
It was supposed to be the Chung Hoon, however, my source at Lockheed did not rememberif it wes her or one other ship. However, he saw it in real life and recognized it as what the Flight III designs had with the Harpoons amidships on the O1 level. Pictures would be great!!! However, substance, it's great the Navy has finally come around to the Harpoon.
DDG 107 gravely-June 2010.jpg (19.13 KiB) Viewed 2489 times
The Northrop Grumman Corporation-built Aegis guided missile destroyer Gravely (DDG 107) returned successfully from her first-ever sea trial last week in the Gulf of Mexico. Reaching this milestone paved the way for delivery to the U.S. Navy later this summer. The destroyer is being built by the company at its Gulf Coast facilities in Pascagoula, Miss.
DDG 107's super trial, normally combining builder's and U.S. Navy acceptance trials, was modified to an integrated acceptance trial to mitigate the impact of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
navydavesof wrote:
Recently Harpoons have been added to at least one Flight IIA Burke.
The friend of mine at Lockheed just contacted me to let me know that he had made an error. He went looking to see which ship it was for me, and upon second review, it was not the Harpoons between the stacks but the Nulka launchers instead.
The correction must be made, however, take a look at the positioning of them. His point is correct in that the Nulka launchers are situated on a platform between the stacks like the Harpoons were supposed to be on the real Flight III. It would still make a good looking model and possibly good in practice.
Actaully the placement is specified by class as to the most effective launch point. What you see between the stacks are the sliding padeyes for cargo handling during replenishment at sea. The padeyes are tilted back to reduce the radar cross section. Also these appear to have a herculite (synthetic fabric) covering to protect it from the elements and improve the ships appearance.
Charles Landrum wrote:Actaully the placement is specified by class as to the most effective launch point...
The difference is that the Flight Is are the majority of ships with NULKA positioned like this. There are a few of the Flight IIAs as well. As so, specifically why it's a "more effective launch point" is unclear to little old me at this time. What is noted is that the sliding pad-eye is moved a bit aft on some of them to leave a more clear launch point. For the criss-crossed Harpoons to go amidships, and this would only be on the Flight II and IIAs, due to NAVSEA's drawings and plans of the Flight IIIs, this is likely where their Harpoons would go, the Harpoons would be on a similar platform, and the sliding pad-eye (highline) would be moved a little aft closer to the bulkhead.
