AB class Flight I and II - upgrades? - The United States Navy - Warships1 and NavWeaps Discussion Boards - Warships1 and NavWeaps Discussion Boards - Message Board

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

AB class Flight I and II - upgrades?

Author	Comment
benbox	AB class Flight I and II - upgrades?	Lead	[-]
Posts: 457 ( 8-Oct-2007 22:14:26) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Would it be technically feasible to modernize / upgrade the Flight 1 and II Burkes with a hangar? Or would it just be too costly in terms of having to re-site the aft VLS and also the aft-facing SPY-1 radar panels? Would it even be desirable? I seem to understand that discussions have begun about possible SLEP for the Burkes, I wonder what that might entail. Thanks Ben
hoist40		#1	[-]
Posts: 933 ( 8-Oct-2007 23:00:27) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I really doubt that they would put a hanger on the Flight I's, I think they also have to lengthen the ship as well and it would all be very costly. It's also not really necessary since the US Navy uses ships in pairs or more and they share the helo's among the ships. When I was on an Adam's class DDG we worked with a Knox class FF with a helo When I was on a Knox class FF we worked with an Adams class DDG When I was on a Flight I Burke we worked with a Spruance. With the Flight I we would often be in operational command of the helo and also refueled it. As to upgrades what I have heard is that they basically plan on bringing the Aegis and other systems(engineering, command and control, navigation, etc) up to the latest standards. The communications system was being upgraded on early ships when I was on them and I assume they are continuing that. Other systems were getting smaller upgrades as well. Whether they will have the money for bringing everything up to latest standards is another question
hoist40		#2	[-]
Posts: 934 ( 8-Oct-2007 23:32:18) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	If you download the link it has a PDF from 2006 which on page 9 has a basic list of DDG-51 upgrades http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006expwarfare/ent.pdf
seasick		#3	[-]
Posts: 4069 (10-Oct-2007 05:31:43) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Adding a hanger to a flight I or II Arleigh Burke Destroyer is most likely cost prohibitive. The Flight IIA design was lengthened 16 feet to accomidate the hangers. The Arleigh Burke design was never optimal for a hanger, as the original design never took a hanger into consideration. Remember that the Arleigh Burke class was originally intended to be 33 vessels to replace the 10 Coontz DDG and 23 C.F. Adams DDG. After the A. Burke build ended a new class of DD was supposed to be built to replace the Spruance class (Where have we heard that one?). The Arleigh Burke class continued and the cold war ended. Congress forced the Navy to fit a hanger into the Flight IIA. Nobody at the beginning of the design process of the A. Burke class thought they would be building them clear into the second decade of the 21st century. Last Edited By: seasick 10-Oct-2007 05:39:02. Edited 1 times.
benbox		#4	[-]
Posts: 458 (11-Oct-2007 18:08:25) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Are we risking massive block obsolesence around the years 2020 - 2030? Ben
hoist40		#5	[-]
Posts: 936 (11-Oct-2007 19:01:26) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	That's why they are working on LCS and DDG1000 or whatever its suppose to be called today. However until those programs get cost, build, equipment and operating problems worked out it's not the time to try to phase out the older Burkes. So at least they have a upgrade plan for the Burkes and are actually doing some of it so the older versions will be able to operate as well as the new ones
seasick		#6	[-]
Posts: 4078 (12-Oct-2007 04:22:03) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Why isn't the DDX being built in baselines or flights? Saving money is pure fantasy when the design takes over ten years to be made.
westwords2020		#7	[-]
Posts: 93 (12-Oct-2007 04:30:06) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Perhaps a hull plug could increase missile capacity by 32 VLS cells forward while an aft plug could accomodate a hangar. Cargo ships have been extended with hull plugs, why not a Burke?
seasick		#8	[-]
Posts: 4079 (12-Oct-2007 19:35:07) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Because the Arleigh Burke class are warships. They are far more complex and need to be kept to high military standards. Jumboizing a freighter or tanker requires some serious cutting and welding but it fairly straight forward and the vessel on has to meet merchant (still tough) standards. The hull form of the Burke class is designed to reduce the radar foot print, a plug no matter how shaped would probably create a concave surface that would reflect radar back toward the source giving the ABurke a radar "hot spot".
RLBH		#9	[-]
Posts: 719 (12-Oct-2007 21:53:20) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Cargo ships have a parallel midbody for ~85% of their length, which is where the plugs have been added historically. Even then, they've generally been regarded somewhat warily as regards standards. Adding end plugs even to these would be impossible without doing very bad things to the fairness of their lines. Any warship today is highly unlikely to have anything on the outside parallel to anything else, for any meaningful distance. Which effectively means that you can't plug it, unless you cut it in half at exactly the point of maximum beam and insert a parallel section there. And there's not a lot you can do with that particular space.
benbox		#10	[-]
Posts: 459 (12-Oct-2007 23:13:35) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I certainly hope either the LCS gets back on track budget-wise. Also I would like to see a DDG(1000-lite), something like a more austere version of DDG(1000) which can be put into greater volume production than the 7 units currently envisioned. I wonder if there's even room for savings. Although I suspect that the first priority for the Zumwalt variants would be CG(X), as I'm under the impression that the Ticos will wear out much sooner than the crop of brand new Burkes. Ben
westwords2020		#11	[-]
Posts: 97 (12-Oct-2007 23:40:08) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Flight III Burkes were have plug and slide modules fore and aft for hangar and extended forward VLS; how could they do that in a production line as proposed?
AegisFC		#12	[-]
Posts: 179 (13-Oct-2007 01:24:03) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Because they were built from the ground up with those extensions, not added later. What you are suggesting is cutting the ship into thirds, which means not only cutting the hull but cutting through data cables, power cables, the firemain, cooling water lines (both electronic and AC) among other things. After you are done you have to weld everything back together, reconnect and tie back into all the cables, test and retest all the affected equipment (damn near everything on board) and redo extensive sea and shock trials. In short you are better off building a new DDG from scratch. Another thing is that the FL IIA's hangar and aft VLS is a level higher than on a regular Burke, an added module still won't give you the room you need for a hangar.
westwords2020		#13	[-]
Posts: 100 (13-Oct-2007 13:19:19) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Then I guess we have to be content with systems modernization of Aegies and maybye a SLEP to keep Burkes in service until a viable replacement comes along. Sensible thing would be to continue production as you pointed out beyond DDG-112. A DDG(X) is part of future shipbuilding program but seems undefined at this point as a Burke replacement. Is series production of DDG-1000 possible in the future beyond seven ships assuming the Zumwalt and her sister are successful? Would a more effective DDG-1000 lengthened to allow additional forty to eighty Mk 57 VLS cells and perhaps a third or fourth AGS/railgun be more attractive despite the added expense in production? I'm assuming once you build the first few units and go into production you would have cost savings as happened to the Burke class down the line. Or maybye I'm wrong here.
g lof2		#14	[-]
Posts: 195 (13-Oct-2007 20:19:20) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	There is no problem with the Zumwalts going into series production, and since it was designed to be a DDG from the start, an one for one replacement would be acceptable. The problem is that don't need Air Defense ships. What we need are command cruisers CG(x)s to replace the Ticos, and land attack cruisers CLA(x) to control littoral and protect the LCSs.
AegisFC		#15	[-]
Posts: 180 (13-Oct-2007 23:03:06) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	No, what the USN NEEDS is a cheap escort that can do all the VBSS, patrol and other minor missions that Burkes and Tico's end up doing.
westwords2020		#16	[-]
Posts: 107 (18-Oct-2007 13:41:49) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I don't think the current LCS could be that cheap escort but the upgunned/missiled export multimission LCS variant might be suitable.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

AB class Flight I and II - upgrades?

AB class Flight I and II - upgrades?

Quick Reply