Arleigh Burke class destroyers?

[kinggodzilla87]

:confused: can any one tell me Why the Flight IIA Burke from DDG 85 on has NO CIWS

look at the PICS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke_class_destroyer

[Tasman]

:confused: can any one tell me Why the Flight IIA Burke from DDG 85 on has NO CIWS

look at the PICS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke_class_destroyer

CIWS was eliminated in Arleigh Burke class destroyers fitted with ESSM.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/ddg-51-flt2a.htm

Flight IIA units are also not fitted with the quad Harpoon launchers that were fitted to the earlier units. Wikipedia suggests that weight is the issue but Global Security suggests cost is the problem and that they can be fitted if required. Flight IIAs also carry two helos which is a significant addition.

Cheers

[AegisFC]

Their is space and weight for Harpoon on the IIA's, but they are not currently installed.
The IIA's also do not have a TACTAS (no space for that).
SM-2's do have a anti-surface mode so it does have an anti-surface missile available (shorter range but better than nothing).

[kinggodzilla87]

OOO
thanks
Anybody think thats kanda stupid

[Tasman]

OOO
thanks
Anybody think thats kanda stupid

There does seem to be some debate about the value of the Phalanx CIWS in vessels that have ESSM. I would prefer both as the Phalanx in its latest version can also deal with fast surface targets. So the issue could be one of cost, space, weight, or simply that the USN doesn’t believe that the CIWS is necessary as a back up to ESSM. Perhaps some of our USN members can shed more light on this.

In the RAN a CIWS is not fitted to Anzac class frigates which have ESSM but it has been retained on the upgraded FFGs after ESSM has been added. From comments made on this forum it seems that topweight is the issue with the Anzacs rather than a perception that a CIWS is unnecessary. Also. the Anzacs do carry the Mini Typhoon to deal with fast surface targets.

Cheers
.

[Jezza]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/ram.htm

I think the RAM will complement and replace CIWS

And the new SEARAM,

The SEA RAM Anti-Ship Missile Defense System under development by RSC and RAMSYS is an evolved Close-In Weapon System (CIWS) comprising key attributes of both the existing Phalanx CIWS and the RAM Guided Missile Weapon System. SEA RAM is designed to extend the battle space of the CIWS and enable the ship to effectively engage multiple targets.
Leveraged technology from Phalanx (http://navysite.de/weapons/phalanx.htm) and RAM integrates elements of each system into the self-contained SEA RAM System. An 11-missile round RAM guide assembly, loaded with RAM Block 1 guided missiles, replaces the 20 mm gun of Phalanx.
SEA RAM combines the superior accuracy, large intercept range and high maneuverability of RAM with the high resolution search-and-track sensor system and reliable quick response capability of Phalanx (http://navysite.de/weapons/phalanx.htm) Block 1B.

On February 1, 2001, SEA RAM was successfully landed aboard the Royal Navy destroyer HMS YORK for trials.

http://navysite.de/launcher/ram.htm

[AegisFC]

OOO
thanks
Anybody think thats kanda stupid

Not really, not every ship needs long range anti-ship missiles.
The IIA's have a helo armed with Penguin ASM's for longer range work and SM II's, the 5" gun and crew served weapons for up close.

[kinggodzilla87]

Not really, not every ship needs long range anti-ship missiles.
The IIA's have a helo armed with Penguin ASM's for longer range work and SM II's, the 5" gun and crew served weapons for up close.

What are you talking about
:confused: :confused:
the 5" gun and crew can not stop a missiles

[AegisFC]

Sorry, I was refering to the lack of Harpoon.

[kinggodzilla87]

Sorry, I was refering to the lack of Harpoon.

OO
ok
Standard missile can sink ship so Why have a the Harpoon


anyWAy Look No CIWS
http://www.jeffhead.com//aegisvesselsoftheworld/Photo-USN-BurkeIIA8.jpg

http://www.jeffhead.com//aegisvesselsoftheworld/Photo-USN-BurkeIIA5.jpg

[Galrahn]

There is no need for a Harpoon, the weapon would only be necessary in a war that involved conflict against a peer Navy, and even then, it is unlikely the US would fit launchers to any ship that doesn't have them.

Boeing can build several dozen Harpoons a week if required, and the newly built (and purchased) Harpoons would be of Block II (or soon to be Block III), which are VLS launched, not launched like the older Block Is currently deployed on USN warships.

In other words, as a weapon that can be mass produced within the United States quickly, the Harpoon is a weapon that the US Navy chooses to go without despite fully funding research for the weapon (which is exported to allies), but as the paying research customer reserves the right to buy and build in mass at anytime.

[Tasman]

Boeing can build several dozen Harpoons a week if required, and the newly built (and purchased) Harpoons would be of Block II (or soon to be Block III), which are VLS launched, not launched like the older Block Is currently deployed on USN warships.



How long has Harpoon Block II been cleared for VLS launch? I wasn't aware that it had been.

OO

anyWAy Look No CIWS
http://www.jeffhead.com//aegisvesselsoftheworld/Photo-USN-BurkeIIA8.jpg

http://www.jeffhead.com//aegisvesselsoftheworld/Photo-USN-BurkeIIA5.jpg

I think we have all agreed that Flight IIA Arleigh Burkes are not fitted with CIWS. As stated previously it seems the USN has decided not to fit the Phalanx CIWS in Burkes that are fitted with ESSM which the Flight IIA vessels have. There is a limit as to how much top weight a ship can carry.

Cheers

[Galrahn]

How long has Harpoon Block II been cleared for VLS launch? I wasn't aware that it had been.

Since 2003, there has never been a production run though. It has been rolled into the currently funded block 3 under development.

[Tasman]

Since 2003, there has never been a production run though. It has been rolled into the currently funded block 3 under development.

Thanks for that. The availability of VLS launched Harpoon will certainly add to the flexibility of ships fitted with the Mk41 system and the Burkes have a lot of VLS cells!

Cheers

[kato]

Since 2003, there has never been a production run though. It has been rolled into the currently funded block 3 under development.

Harpoon "Block II" exists as an upgrade package for Block I. Seeker/software upgrade mostly, no VLS capability as the Block I missiles are used with it (afaik all upgraded missiles were Block IC). Upgrade kits were bought by Denmark, Australia, Pakistan and Japan.
And there is a production run for the full Block II missile: Korea ordered 10 new encapsulated Harpoon II, Pakistan another 30. Both orders in March this year, full delivery is planned by December 2011 for both. Afaik those won't be VLS-capable either though.

[alexsa]

Since 2003, there has never been a production run though. It has been rolled into the currently funded block 3 under development.

As far as I know Block III has not yet been funded. To date Harpoon is not VLS but you would have to assume it is coming given DDG1000 will not use canisters.

In my view VLS, when it gets into operation, would be very useful to the ANZAC as we could prepalce canisters Harpoon with VLS (in an extra Mk41 module) reuding the top weight issues and allow a more flexible laod out.

[Tasman]

As far as I know Block III has not yet been funded. To date Harpoon is not VLS but you would have to assume it is coming given DDG1000 will not use canisters.

In my view VLS, when it gets into operation, would be very useful to the ANZAC as we could prepalce canisters Harpoon with VLS (in an extra Mk41 module) reuding the top weight issues and allow a more flexible laod out.

What would be the weight of an extra 8 cell Mk41 VLS system containing 8 Harpoon compared with 8 in 2 quad mountings? I realise that as well as the weight the distribution and height of the mountings would be significant re stability. The Anzac mountings forward of the bridge appear make these ships appear 'bow heavy' in some photos.

I agree that being able to use VLS cells would provide far more flexibility for Arleigh Burkes, Anzacs or any other Mk41 equipped vessels. In the case of the Anzacs, for example, once the Seasprite (ahem!) is operational with Penguin missiles, there may be situations where extra ESSMs might be preferable in place of some or all of the Harpoons. With the large number of cells in the Burkes the flexibility for weapon loadout would be enormous and would include combinations of SM-3, SM-2, quad packed ESSM, Tomahawk, Harpoon, ASROC and later the SM-6.

Cheers

[alexsa]

What would be the weight of an extra 8 cell Mk41 VLS system containing 8 Harpoon compared with 8 in 2 quad mountings? I realise that as well as the weight the distribution and height of the mountings would be significant re stability. The Anzac mountings forward of the bridge appear make these ships appear 'bow heavy' in some photos.

It isw off topic but the VLS cells extend down to the main deck but the canisters for harpoon ar located on 01 deck forward of the bridge about 2.4m above manin deck. The CoG of the cansiters wouel be higher thatn that as the whole mass is carried above 01 deck with the canisters elevated.

The distance from the top of the hanger to main deck is about 5.4m with the top of the VLS sitting higher again, however, the CoG of total mass of the the Mk41 and weapons carried should be lower than the CoG of the cannisters.

As such it should provide an improvement provided the combination of mass above the main deck for the Mk41 and weapons does not result in a greater rise in vessel CoG compared to the total mass of the cannisters mounted above deck 01. In other words while the Mk41 should have a lower CoG it may result in a higher vessel CoG if the mass of the Mk41 and weapons creates a greater moment compared to the mass of the canisters with formula being:

GG1 = w x d
Final mass


Where GG1 is the movement of the centre of gravity, w is the mass being added (or removed), d is the distacne to the CoG of the mass and Final mass being the combination of the starting mass of the vessel and the added (or removed) mass.

case of the Anzacs, for example, once the Seahawk (ahem!)
Cheers

Seasprite ...... I reckon this was a typo.

[Galrahn]

As far as I know Block III has not yet been funded. To date Harpoon is not VLS but you would have to assume it is coming given DDG1000 will not use canisters.

In my view VLS, when it gets into operation, would be very useful to the ANZAC as we could prepalce canisters Harpoon with VLS (in an extra Mk41 module) reuding the top weight issues and allow a more flexible laod out.

FY07 was first year for funding Harpoon Block III R&D, it is actually a stated item in the main budget. There is additional funding in the FY08 budget planned.

I said 2003, I should have said 2005, FY05 was year for R&D funding for Block II which included VLS capability in the research. 2003 was my mistake from faulty memory.

Keep in mind, most of the R&D contracts are not announced like the production contracts (even though most are public record), you have to go to the line item budget materials (or find the right information by accident through a knowledgeable source) to see the budget allocation for this type of thing. The Block III item is an exception in the FY07 budget, you can find it.

The individual line item budget sheet used to be in the google cache (and may still be on Janes, and is discussed in an old NOSI post), but is no longer available via google.

[Galrahn]

With the large number of cells in the Burkes the flexibility for weapon loadout would be enormous and would include combinations of SM-3, SM-2, quad packed ESSM, Tomahawk, Harpoon, ASROC and later the SM-6.

One would think, but reality and potential are two different things. The Burkes capability may not be limited by its VLS cells, but it is limited by its technology. Specifically, depending upon which Flight of Burkes you are talking about determines which true capability the ship has in terms of weapon variety. Even for a VLS launched Harpoon, simply because it could be launched, the fire control software for the weapon doesn't exist as an integration into the AEGIS system at this time, so there would still be work to do.

Another issue is that Flight doesn't always determine potential loadout either. There are 12 Flight Is able to launch SM-3s, but 0 Flight IIs or Flight IIAs. Only the Flight IIAs after DDG-79 can support ESSM, while not all Flight I or Flight IIs can support the Block IV Tomahawks.

Hopefully the DDG modernization will fix the mess, but to date the modernization is not funded well enough to baseline the DDGs, although thankfully, the CG modernization does.

[Tasman]

It isw off topic but the VLS cells extend down to the main deck but the canisters for harpoon ar located on 01 deck forward of the bridge about 2.4m above manin deck. The CoG of the cansiters wouel be higher thatn that as the whole mass is carried above 01 deck with the canisters elevated.

The distance from the top of the hanger to main deck is about 5.4m with the top of the VLS sitting higher again, however, the CoG of total mass of the the Mk41 and weapons carried should be lower than the CoG of the cannisters.

As such it should provide an improvement provided the combination of mass above the main deck for the Mk41 and weapons does not result in a greater rise in vessel CoG compared to the total mass of the cannisters mounted above deck 01. In other words while the Mk41 should have a lower CoG it may result in a higher vessel CoG if the mass of the Mk41 and weapons creates a greater moment compared to the mass of the canisters with formula being:

GG1 = w x d
Final mass


Where GG1 is the movement of the centre of gravity, w is the mass being added (or removed), d is the distacne to the CoG of the mass and Final mass being the combination of the starting mass of the vessel and the added (or removed) mass.



Thanks for that. Now I know why I would never have been successful as a naval architect or as an engineer!




Seasprite ...... I reckon this was a typo.

Correct! I think that, like me, my computer keyboard does nasty things when someone mentions the name "SEASPRITE!" :D

One would think, but reality and potential are two different things. The Burkes capability may not be limited by its VLS cells, but it is limited by its technology. Specifically, depending upon which Flight of Burkes you are talking about determines which true capability the ship has in terms of weapon variety. Even for a VLS launched Harpoon, simply because it could be launched, the fire control software for the weapon doesn't exist as an integration into the AEGIS system at this time, so there would still be work to do.

Another issue is that Flight doesn't always determine potential loadout either. There are 12 Flight Is able to launch SM-3s, but 0 Flight IIs or Flight IIAs. Only the Flight IIAs after DDG-79 can support ESSM, while not all Flight I or Flight IIs can support the Block IV Tomahawks.

Hopefully the DDG modernization will fix the mess, but to date the modernization is not funded well enough to baseline the DDGs, although thankfully, the CG modernization does.

Things are never as simple as they seem! Let's hope that the navy gets the funding necessary to baseline the Arleigh Burkes up to a reasonably capable level so far as fire control and missile capability is concerned. Maybe not all of the class need to carry the Block IV Tomahawk or the SM-3 but I would have thought that ESSM, at least, ought to be retrofitted in them all.

Cheers

[ThePuss]

In the RAN a CIWS is not fitted to Anzac class frigates which have ESSM but it has been retained on the upgraded FFGs after ESSM has been added. From comments made on this forum it seems that topweight is the issue with the Anzacs rather than a perception that a CIWS is unnecessary. Also. the Anzacs do carry the Mini Typhoon to deal with fast surface targets.

Cheers
.


RNZN ANZAC's carry CIWS, we dont because the space is taken up by the AFT Nulka lauchers.

I prefer Nulka because CIWS is so close range, if you do shoot down the missile you are still going to take alot of shrapnel.

[Tasman]

RNZN ANZAC's carry CIWS, we dont because the space is taken up by the AFT Nulka lauchers.

I prefer Nulka because CIWS is so close range, if you do shoot down the missile you are still going to take alot of shrapnel.

I suspect that the damage caused by shrapnel is one reason that the Arleigh Burke Flight IIA vessels are relying on ESSM for close in anti missile defence (as do the OZ Anzacs in conjunction with the missile decoy that you have mentioned). Do you think there is still a case for a VSRAD system such as RAM to be installed as a back up to ESSM in the ABs and as a back up to ESSM and Nulka in the Anzacs?

The issue of topweight was raised in the RAN thread and also in other forums as another reason why a CIWS has not been fitted to the Anzacs.

BTW, its good to hear confidence being expressed in the effectiveness of Nulka.

Cheers

[ThePuss]

I suspect that the damage caused by shrapnel is one reason that the Arleigh Burke Flight IIA vessels are relying on ESSM for close in anti missile defence (as do the OZ Anzacs in conjunction with the missile decoy that you have mentioned). Do you think there is still a case for a VSRAD system such as RAM to be installed as a back up to ESSM in the ABs and as a back up to ESSM and Nulka in the Anzacs?

The issue of topweight was raised in the RAN thread and also in other forums as another reason why a CIWS has not been fitted to the Anzacs.

BTW, its good to hear confidence being expressed in the effectiveness of Nulka.

Cheers


While topweight is an issue on ANZACs, The main problem with a VSRAD system (as much as I would love to have it) is that we are simply running out of space.

Anazcs where originally designed as a patrol frigate and since then have had 2 MK 141 harpoon launchers, 4 quad Nulkas launchers, 2 Mini Typoon, various satcom dishes and soon will have an enclosed fwd mast. When I strol around 02 deck of "My Barge" I really can't see any more spots where you would put any new weapons with any kind of firing arc.

[Tasman]

While topweight is an issue on ANZACs, The main problem with a VSRAD system (as much as I would love to have it) is that we are simply running out of space.

Anazcs where originally designed as a patrol frigate and since then have had 2 MK 141 harpoon launchers, 4 quad Nulkas launchers, 2 Mini Typoon, various satcom dishes and soon will have an enclosed fwd mast. When I strol around 02 deck of "My Barge" I really can't see any more spots where you would put any new weapons with any kind of firing arc.

Thanks for the excellent information. It is good to hear from someone in the service commenting on things most of us just speculate about.

Cheers