The Navy has taken delivery of the first Flt III Burke
destroyer, USS Jack H. Lucas, DDG-125.
Photos and concept drawings show that the ship’s entire close in defense
consists of a single CIWS mounted aft of the rear stack, on top of the helo
hangar. That’s it. One CIWS.
That’s either an extraordinary faith in the long and medium range AAW
missiles or an incredible display of stupidity.
I’ll let you decide which.
There is also an open spot forward of the superstructure
which I’m guessing is reserved for a laser of some sort.
 |
| USS Lucas DDG-125 |
How wide is the arc with *zero* CIWS coverage? Criminal that they didn't stick SeaRAM or somewhere forward, even if it's a placeholder for the laser that might be ready ten years after the war is over.
ReplyDeleteThat was me btw, not sure how I messed up the name/url entry.
DeleteMy beef are the low margins and horrible gas mileage. Slow to deliver and we are going to buy too many of them. Run toward a cheap Flt IV designed to place slightly above FFG and compete with it.
ReplyDeleteOr sub-divide the roles into multiple ships.
DeleteAAW on an Atlanta class sized hull.
ASW on other ships, some with helos and some not. Could be done on WW2 destroyer sized ships (or just slightly larger for the helo ship).
Lutefisk
"Or sub-divide the roles into multiple ships."
DeleteYou got it!
"Run toward a cheap Flt IV"
DeleteGood grief, NO! Will the Burkes never end? Why not keep building wooden sailing ships?! The Constitution was successful. Let's keep making variations of that!
The Burkes are fundamentally flawed (see, Burkes - The Anchor Around the Navy's Neck). We need to let go of our Burke safety net and develop a new ship optimized for modern naval combat. Endlessly tweaking the Burkes into a Flt IV, Flt V, Flt VI, Flt XXXX is not the answer to anything except how to produce successively more obsolete ships.
For any that are interested, this is CNO's post about an AAW ship.
Deletehttps://navy-matters.blogspot.com/search/label/Atlanta%20Class
Since the Navy seems to struggle to design ships nowadays, I'd have them start the design process literally with an Atlanta class hull, and then go from there.
Lutefisk
My way is trying to get the best result by avoiding the actual navy and procurement system as much as possible. I'd also design a Zumwalt Flt II for the high end. Keep in mind the Flt IIIs look the same but are in some important ways, entirely different. Electrical system is high on my likes list. We need to play money ball. I don't want to try and recruit big money talent when it doesn't win us the pennant.
DeleteToo bad the DDG(X) cruiser we're calling a destroyer isn't being split into two ships--one built from the keel up to be an ASW ship (DD) and the other an AAW ship (DDG). I realize the ASW ship would not be cheap, but I hope its cost could be kept under $1 billion as it wouldn't have the Aegis system, associated radars, and extra VLS cells needed for Standard missiles.
Delete" I realize the ASW ship would not be cheap, but I hope its cost could be kept under $1 billion"
DeleteWhy would you imagine it would cost anywhere near $1B? If we gave it ONLY what it needed for ASW, it shouldn't cost anywhere near $1B.
"My way is trying to get the best result by avoiding the actual navy and procurement system as much as possible."
DeleteI'm not sure what you're actually referring to with that, however, wouldn't you rather have a GOOD result instead of a less bad result? A Burke Flt xxxx is just trying to put lipstick on a pig. If we want a good result, we have to abandon the illusion of safety from a Burke. Again, we can keep building Constitutions because they were a good ship hundreds of years ago or we can build a modern ship that is optimized for today's naval combat.
"If we gave it ONLY what it needed for ASW, it shouldn't cost anywhere near $1B."
DeleteGood to know. Seriously, I'm not the best person at estimating ship costs. I just know the Burke's cost has grown substantially over time.
"I'm not the best person at estimating ship costs"
DeleteNeither is the Navy!
Does the Navy really know the ship costs of the Burke these days? I assume estimates that are in use and approved by Congress likely hasn't account for the limited manning of personnel (rusty ships), high OP tempo, low yard availability, how much really the Navy is paying more for the damages, reduced maintenance and delay?
Delete$200 million repair period per ship for the Ticondegra (probably the same for the Burkes) and 37 millions per year per ship per fleet per year?
An ASW only frigate, well planned and probably with compromises is already a 700 million dollar ship if raised in the U.S. Procurement and shipbuilding process.
DeleteDuring Flight III's design and development, rather than kept upgrading, kept down grading and compromise as it cannot generate enough electricity to power a monster radar.
ReplyDeleteIt is time to focus on the supposed 13,500 ton DDG(X) but sad thing is that it is still in design stage. DDG(X) is scheduled (now) to start construction only in 2030.
" rather than kept upgrading, kept down grading and compromise as it cannot generate enough electricity to power a monster radar."
DeleteI think this would be a good reason to go nuclear as conventional power would be very polluting otherwise...
After all as ComNavOps already noted:
"Biden has issued an Executive Order directing the Pentagon to make climate change a national security priority."
From below:
https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2021/01/climate-change-and-treason.html
Guess it is time to dust off the findings from those nuclear powered ships like below:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Bainbridge_(CGN-25)
Anyway about the possible future laser fittings, well, lasers seems to work at least for Israel. though on the ground against balloons as I mentioned in the comments section of the link below (on Light Blade, a ground based laser, though, putting it on a ship may be another matter perhaps someone who knows can add some more details)
https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2023/02/chinese-balloon.html
1 CIWS?
ReplyDeleteThis has been field tested with the OHP frigates and it failed miserably
Are the designers too young to remember, or have heard of, the USS Stark?
You just linked 2 unrelated things to make an argument I think. Stark's CIWS was off at the time. Really a matter of when the only salvation is for the combat system to decide to take over from the humans.
Delete"1 CIWS?
ReplyDeleteThis has been field tested with the OHP frigates and it failed miserably
Are the designers too young to remember, or have heard of, the USS Stark?"
While I agree that 1 CIWS is a bad idea, the example you give is not illustrative of your point. Stark's CIWS was in standby mode when the missiles hit - it could've had two Phalanx plus two time-travelling SeaRAM and the result wouldn't have been any different. Cf. the investigation's formal report, which can be found archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20220901090909/https://www.jag.navy.mil/library/investigations/USS%20STARK%20BASIC.pdf
Thanks for the link. A crewman once told me the ship's captain kept the firing key used to arm the ship's weaponry with him at all times to prevent career ending accidents. He didn't make to the bridge in time.
Delete"A crewman once told me the ship's captain kept the firing key used to arm the ship's weaponry with him at all times"
DeleteNeither the official investigation report nor the book, Missile Inbound, about the incident, mention this. I'm extremely doubtful that this was the case.
" He didn't make to the bridge in time."
The report indicates that the Captain was never successfully contacted prior to the missile impacts and, thus, making to the bridge in time was not an issue.
Again, even in the last few moments before impact, neither the report nor book make any mention of being unable to arm and fire weapons - merely that the relevant weapons and systems were in stand-by rather than active.
If you have any verifiable information that the weapons COULD NOT operate because the Captain 'had the keys' or any other such impediment, I'd love to know more!
I have no proof, but knowing that careers end with stupid accidents, I would not be surprised. Of course no official Navy report would print this if true. It does explain why all systems remained on stand-by.
DeleteTurn away from the threat...and pride month...take it up the arse maybe?
ReplyDeleteOn a different note. It seems the heli deck of the Burke is about 3-4 m above the sea level. Would that work is the sea is a bit rough.
ReplyDelete-BM
In 2014 Captain ordered full speed ahead during a change in course with helo on landing deck and washed the helo overboard which resulted in the drowning of the two pilots. Congress refused to confirm the promotion of the Captain to Admiral.
DeleteBurke Flt IIIs increased the beam and freeboard above the stern waterline to stop a recurrence.
Nick
"washed the helo overboard"
DeleteIf you read the investigative report, you noted that the ship's Captain followed all rules and procedures. Safe operating procedures stated that the ship was free to maneuver once the helo was chained down and that's exactly what the Captain did. The freakish nature of the 'rogue wave' that damaged the helo and washed it overboard was something that was avoidable ONLY IN HINDSIGHT.
Yes, we can impose a vast array of rules to make helo operations as close to 100% safe as possible but that would neuter the helo and ship's purpose which is combat. Naval operations are inherently risky and things will, occasionally, go bad despite everyone following all established safety rules. That's the price of combat training and readiness.
Burke soft kill defense, the Navy under the $17 billion DDG Mod 2 program plans to upgrade ~ 20 Flt IIAs with the new SEWIP Block 3 (plus SPY-6(V)4 and Aegis 10), will take 2 years in shipyard for the upgrade. SEWIP Block 3 has the big advantage of a powerful ECM capability, though not cheap at $80 million each.
ReplyDeleteDDG-125 only fitted with SEWIP Block 2 without the powerful ECM capability of SEWIP Block 3 which only fitted to new build Burkes procured from FY2023? Burkes fitted with Nulka decoys and some with the AN/SLQ-62 TEWM-STF (Transportable Electronic Warfare Module-Speed To Fleet).
I thought the trend across a lot of navies was to move away from gun-base CIWS because.
ReplyDeleteA) There's real doubt about how effective it'd be
B) Too high a chance of eating a load of shrapnel even from a successful intercept.
Which is why the SeaRAM is replacing it.
There's real doubt about how effective RAM is, having never been tested in realistic exercises.
Delete"I thought the trend across a lot of navies was to move away from gun-base CIWS because.
DeleteA) There's real doubt about how effective it'd be
B) Too high a chance of eating a load of shrapnel even from a successful intercept.
Which is why the SeaRAM is replacing it."
I think that there is a couple of things going on there:
1) The engagement range is short, so there is not much time to engage and then move on to the next target.
- This is why there should be multiple CIWS around the ship with fields of fire like an infantry platoon's sector sketch.
2) The engagement range is short so debris might hit the ship.
- This is why ships should be armored, enough said on that.
3) The US Navy seems to design their missile defense from the outside in. Clearly they see it just like in 'Red Storm Rising' where they see on radar a certain number of incoming missiles. They send out a certain number of standard missiles and X percentage hit. Then another volley of standard missiles and again X percentage hit.
The remaining inbound missiles are then engaged with ESSM, and X percentage hit.
The leftovers are intercepted by SeaRAM and if there are any straggling leakers, the Phalanx can shoot it down.
- Instead, missile defense should be designed from the inside out. Phalanx should be set up to cover 360 degrees, and as if it is the only missile defense the ship has. Then SeaRAM set up the same way, 100% overlapping the Phalanx sectors of fire. ESSM should then be available for multiple engagements, and ideally, it should be set up as both quad-packed VLS and also arm launchers to point at the incoming missile's vector to reduce engagement time, when possible. And finally, AAW ships would have standard missiles for the times that missiles or aircraft are identified at stand-off ranges.
IMO, those are the reasons that the navy doesn't care about CIWS.
Lutefisk
"I thought the trend across a lot of navies was to move away from gun-base CIWS because."
DeleteThe following reply is directed not at you, Anon, personally, but at any country, warship designer, or naval observer who calls for replacing CIWS (meaning, Phalanx-ish guns) with missiles (meaning RAM/SeaRAM).
This is the epitome of stupid, shortsighted thinking.
A CIWS is the last chance, every other defense has failed, we're about to die, final hope to avoid obliteration. It's not the main defensive weapon. YOU DON'T REPLACE YOUR LAST CHANCE WEAPON, YOU SUPPLEMENT IT !!!!!!!
Instead of looking to replace CIWS. Add more CIWS. Add more RAM/SeaRAM. Add more ESSM. Develop a better horizon-in radar (better at sorting aerial debris) that will allow you to use your existing missiles more effectively.
A soldier doesn't replace his knife because it hasn't got the range of a handgun or because it lacks the ability to penetrate personal armor; he ADDS to his weapons so that he doesn't have to depend on a knife as his main weapon. The knife is the last chance weapon when all else has failed. YOU DON'T REPLACE YOUR LAST CHANCE.
Anyone who wants to replace a CIWS doesn't understand the realities of combat and doesn't understand WARship design.
When you're down to your last chance, who cares if some shrapnel or debris hits the ship? It's way better than having an intact, functioning missile hit the ship.
We're building major, multi-billion dollar ships with ONE (Burke) or NO (that's none, zilch, nada, zero) (Zumwalt) close in weapon. You don't replace it. You add many more defensive weapons to it.
Stupid, stupid, stupid. Absolute morons are designing our ships and naval observers are compounding the idiocy with even more moronic ideas.
"I thought the trend across a lot of navies"
Delete'The trend' is another way of saying 'group think' and, in my experience, group think is almost always wrong. We don't engage in group think, we engage in smart think.
No other Navy has the global objectives and responsibilities that the US has so why would we look to someone else's naval thoughts as the guide for us? That doesn't mean we ignore good ideas that may be out there but it means that we absolutely view other country's ides with a highly skeptical eye because they probably derive from a different set of objectives and requirements.
We should not be playing follow the leader with regard to naval thinking, we should BE THE LEADER.
We really need to look into the Italian 76mm Oto Melara Sovraponte mount. Zero deck penetration, light enough to be installed on top of helicopter hangar, it's the CIWS of choice for the Italian navy. It's gun based CIWS from the opposite angle: instead of a lower caliber high ROF autocannon, you instead have a rapidfire 3" gun shooting VT fuse flak rounds.
DeleteIt's interesting IMO to see that the Italians started with 20mm (with a 12 barrel weapon even!), went to 40mm Bofors, and are now settling on 3 inch as their CIWS caliber. Now, perhaps part of that is leveraging their existing infrastructure and inventory, and this is really a sow's ear that Mario and Luigi are turning into a silk purse, but it boggles the mind that nobody in NAVSEA seems to have considered evaluating this weapon.
"We really need to look into the Italian 76mm Oto Melara Sovraponte mount."
DeleteUntil someone presents some actual, live fire, REALISTIC test data showing it can take down a terminal maneuvering, high subsonic and supersonic anti-ship missile, it's not worthy of consideration in the AAW role. I've never seen any non-CIWS gun capable of effective anti-missile defense.
Got any data?
Is there actual, live fire, realistic test data showing that 20mm Phalanx can take down a terminal maneuvering, high subsonic and supersonic anti-ship missile?
DeleteThe point is that we need to be testing our approaches and assumptions. The Navy has decided on 20mm and RAM as the only point defenses and is refusing to even test or validate these assumptions, let alone consider other approaches.
All I'm saying is that this is a different way of skinning the cat, and we need to test and see if it will work, instead of rejecting it out of hand. But Big Navy seems to have made no effort to up the CIWS game.
One Navy taking CIWS seriously is the Korean Navy, developing a new CIWS-II to serve as the “last line of defence” for their ships to counter future anti-ship threats, budgeting $245 million to 2030. A 30mm Gatling gun with a dedicated AESA FCR (based on the AESA radar technology developed for their KF-21 Boramae fighter) and an electro-optical targeting system (EOTS)
DeleteNick
How long before it looks like a rust bucket?
ReplyDeleteConsidering the USN keeps having problems with recruiting and retaining the seamen necessary to maintain the ship and prevent her from becoming a rust bucket? No time at all.
Delete"We really need to look into the Italian 76mm Oto Melara Sovraponte mount... it's the CIWS of choice for the Italian navy."
ReplyDeleteI have to say I'm a bit skeptical of this. I was interested in the 76mm rapid fire gun as a way to engage speed boat swarms. I think of a 76mm as a high velocity anti-tank direct fire weapon. But I looked at the ballistic profile and it wasn't flat enough.
I wonder if it would have the same problem trying to range out in a CIWS role?
Personally, I'd mix the Phalanx with the 30mm Goalkeeper, which uses the A10's gun, to get a little more range and punch but maintain the high volume of fire.
Lutefisk
I only see static surface test and slow UAV target tests of 76mm DART, but I'd still like to know how it does. We are burning cash developing Madfires for Mk 110. It would be nice to know the concept works or whether we should switch shell size again.
Delete"But I looked at the ballistic profile and it wasn't flat enough."
DeleteI was hoping a 76 mm gun would be good against boat swarms. I also hoped the DART guided ammunition would help. The manufacturer makes impressive claims for it, but we know healthy skepticism is in order when reading advertising.
" I'd mix the Phalanx with the 30mm Goalkeeper, which uses the A10's gun, to get a little more range and punch but maintain the high volume of fire."
I like the Goalkeeper. The Phalanx is more flexible in that its installation does not require deck penetration as the Goalkeeper does. I thought having both 20 mm and 30 mm CIWSs in service would complicate logistics. But considering that the US Navy had 20 mm, 40 mm, and 5-inch guns for antiaircraft fire in World War Two, before the days of computers and bar codes, maybe that isn't a big deal.
The concept of electronic attack on inbound missiles is intriguing, However after reading CNO's post from a year ago ,SEWIP block 3 still has major performance problems.
ReplyDeletePB