The Burke class will begin retiring soon. The early Burkes were commissioned beginning
in 1991 and are now approaching 30+ years of service with a scheduled 35 year
service life. The Navy does not maintain
a reserve fleet so retiring Burkes will likely be scrapped or sold to foreign
countries. With the ever-shrinking size
of the fleet, one can’t help but wonder whether we could bestow a second life
on the Burkes when they reach the end of their front line service.
Let’s consider alternative, second life uses for the early
Flt I and II Burkes (lacking hangars) which will be the first to be retired.
As a point of interest, we did a similar post for the LCS in
which we considered alternate uses for the vessel (see, “LCS Alternative Uses”).
Before we go any further, we need to address, and dispense
with, the belief that the ships will have reached the end of their life and
that no further service is even possible due to physical constraints.
Despite the Navy’s dismissive and foolish attitude towards
older ships, any ship, even one as poorly maintained as a Navy ship, can have
its service life substantially (indefinitely) extended. Consider a few examples of extended ship service
lives that we’ve seen.
We can renovate anything, if we wish.
Consider the example of the B-52 bomber which has been in
active service since the 1950’s, some 70 years or so. We can re-wing, re-instrument, re-fuselage,
re-anything. Similarly, we can replace a
ship’s storage tanks, replace internal wiring and piping, replace corroded
sections of hull plating, replace engines, upgrade computers, install new
weapons and sensors, and so on and it’s still cheaper than building a brand new
ship.
One valid concern regarding new construction is that we are
currently limited not only by new construction budget but also by new
construction shipyard capacity. Congress,
the Navy, and the submarine industry, for example, all want to increase
submarine production by one additional submarine per year but the shipyard
capacity simply doesn’t exist. Upgrades
and renovations suffer from this same constraint but to a lesser extent in that
renovation/conversion work can be performed by more facilities than are
available for new construction. Thus, through
renovation we can gain ‘new’ ships without having to tie up new construction
facilities.
The steady, reliable, additional work demand of constant
Burke conversions would also encourage industry to expand their facilities to
support substantial additional work.
Thus, we not only gain useful ships for a bargain price, we grow our
shipbuilding industry. Win, win!
Of course, there’s always the challenge of developing a
sufficient skilled labor pool but we’ve already addressed how to accomplish
that.
So, now that we understand and recognize that conversions
are possible and that there is no actual physical service life limit, what
specific alternate Burke uses could we imagine?
Here are a few possibilities:
ASW Helicopter Destroyer
– The aft VLS could be eliminated and converted to a second flight deck with
dual hangars each side of the stack housing.
With the existing, main level flight deck this would provide two flight
decks and two hangars giving the ship the ability to operate 4-6 SH-60 type
helos. The forward 32-cell VLS could be
used for a combination of AAW defense and anti-submarine VL-ASROC (we ought to
develop a substantially longer range VL-ASROC!). Adding Russian-style RBU or Hedgehog type
close-in anti-submarine weapons would further enhance the ASW capability.
- WWII LSTs are still in service around the world.
- The Perry class frigates, which the Navy claimed could not be upgraded, have been upgraded and still serve in various foreign navies.
- The WWII cruiser USS Phoenix, launched in 1938, served as the Argentine Belgrano until sunk in 1982.
 |
| Concept Drawing of a Burke ASW Helo Destroyer - Note the second, raised flight deck in place of the VLS and room for two hangars either side of the stack |
Take your idea of clearing out the aft area, and use 1 or 2 as modern versions of the Norton Sound. The USN could then test weapons or systems on an actual ship that could could go on exercises with the fleet.
ReplyDeleteI like the way you're thinking!
DeleteReminds me of the old saying you can't make a silk puse out a sow's ear.
ReplyDeleteBurkes are gas guzzlers and design tech date back to the 70s and 80s and Navy has already tried to replace them with the disaster that was Zumwalt back in 2000 and failed miserably.
Should be aiming for modern new shipyards and designs that can compare with Asian shipyards, South Korean building their 4,000t FFX Batch III frigates for $300 million. Commercial ships average life expectancy before scrapping last time looked was just over 20 years.
"Should be aiming for modern new shipyards"
DeleteOf course ... but in the near term this would be a way to both get 'new' ships into the fleet and to encourage the development of the shipyards.
Navy have the Destroyer Modernization 2 for 20 Burke Flight IIAs with SPY-6(V)4, SEWIP Block 3 and updated Aegis, mention program cost of $17B and two years in shipyard per ship. Some in Congress have expressed lack of faith in the ability of Navy to handle the program after their total failure of the Tico modernization.
DeleteBased on above don't see your suggestion of re-purposing
Burke Flight I & IIs as either cost effective or quick with Navy's lack management skills.
"total failure of the Tico modernization."
DeleteBear in mind that the Tico modernization was a complete and total success. The Navy wanted to get rid of the Ticos and the sham of a modernization program was the way they did it. It worked brilliantly from the Navy's perspective. It was complete fraud but it accomplished the Navy's goal of eliminating the Ticos.
They could simply and cheaply become arsenal ships.
ReplyDeleteWould also make some nice motherships, probably overspec'd but that never bothered the Navy before.
"arsenal ships"
DeleteWe already have more VLS cells than we have missiles so that's not all that helpful.
"motherships"
That's an interesting idea. My only concerns would be whether we could carve out enough machine shop areas (probably could), parts storage (maybe could?), and how to provide access to the whatever it was servicing (meaning, cranes, wells decks, lifts, etc.).
On the plus side, if you retain the forward VLS, this could be a forward deployed, fast mothership that would be capable of defending itself which is a characteristic motherships typically lack and which somewhat limits their usefulness.
Good thinking!
Not an arsenal ship, a fire support ship. It would have a main armament of Army MLRS and USMC Himars launchers (navalized to resist salt water). Himars launcher (being smaller and narrower) could take space formerly used by harpoon launchers. The aft VLS would become a firing platform with a loading elevator to bring up more missiles from the below decks space. The entirety of the aft deck would have multiple launching units on simple turntables (no need for a sophisticated mount). The old aegis/spy system would be replaced with a simpler defensive system for use with quad-packed ESSM in 8 of the existing forward VLS cells while the remaining forward cells would Tomahawks. All ASW equipment would be removed. This ship would be singular in purpose. Not a do everything vessel. Which should also reduce the manning requirements.
DeleteI like your idea of being a UAV/USV/UWV mother ship. I believe that is something that will be required sooner than later.
ReplyDeleteAnd the other idea you had of making it the passive EM ship. That will be required and is required now.
The is also the nearly century old tradition of passing on former naval vessels to the Coast Guard. Considering the size of new Chinese cutters bullying their way in the South China sea, a Burke turned cutter would be a good response (I’d prefer a Tico, but that would just be too good to be possible).
ReplyDeleteThe hanger expansion you discussed for your ASW variant (Heavy Frigate?) would be applied. And while a VLS on a cutter might not be approved, that deck space could support a second CIWS and 25mm guns (both of which are in CG service) with the below deck space converted to improved berthing. While the torpedo launchers might be removed, the sonar and torpedo storage area would be retained. During WW2 and the Reagan era, the CG performed ASW and frigate duties. Should a shooting war in the Pacific happen, then the torpedo launchers could be reinstalled and the SAR helicopters of the CG replaced with Navy ASW helos. The 5” guns stays. The Chinese are fielding equally heavy guns on their cutters so this would be a good step forward in keeping a balance. People also forget that the CG provided fire support for troops during Vietnam back when those cutters were all armed with 5’ guns.
It's worth noting the Aussie OHP project had some issues. They had to sink 2 of their 6 to offset the costs, there were large schedule overruns due to - surprise surprise - integration issues, it cost almost $2 billion ($US 2023) for 4 ships, and they only operated them for 7, 9, 11, and 11 years each in the upgraded state.
ReplyDeleteIt was probably necessary at the time as the cost to crash-develop a clean-sheet 21st century AAW capability would have been ludicrous, but it's telling that the Aussies used the time this program bought them to invest in higher-capability new builds at A$3 billion a pop (2020, $2 billion USD).
Using your numbers, the upgrade cost $500M per ship to gain an average of, call it ten years. That's $50M per ship per year.
DeleteThe new construction Hobarts cost $2B each with, say, a 35 year life. That's $57M per ship per year.
Thus, a badly managed upgrade produced ship-life that was slightly cheaper than new construction. Well worth it! A better managed upgrade could/should have reduced that cost by half making the upgrade even more attractive.
'We can re-wing, re-instrument, re-fuselage, re-anything'
ReplyDeleteShip of Theseus all the B-52's still in service are actually new build's.
More seriously it looks like all the wing and fuselage changes happened before the end of the 1970's due to mission changes from high to low altitude flight profiles (SAM's are so fun!).
Unless any happened more recently but my knowledge of the B-52 is very limited.
I'm also referring to the F-18 Hornet life extension upgrades where we rewinged and refuselaged the aircraft. We also rewinged A-6s at one point. The list of re-xxxx things is almost endless.
DeleteHonest question to anyone in the know.
DeleteIf you re-wing and re-fuselage an aircraft isn't all that's left bits that are replaced more often anyway like radar/sensors, cockpit/instruments and engines?
Also anyone with links to articles about the re-fuselaged F-18's is welcome since I can't find anything on that.
"anyone with links to articles about the re-fuselaged F-18's"
DeleteThe replacement program was called the Center Barrel Replacement program and the work was conducted at the Fleet Readiness Centers. Here's an article:
"Re-Fuselage"
The program encompassed more than just the center fuselage replacement, as the article notes. The program then morphed into the Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) and the ultimate result was the addition of several thousand hours to the aircraft's service life.
New aircraft programs are something I've been interested in lately. If you notice even in the commercial space we rarely see true clean sheet designs. The factory and tooling are almost half the development cost, so if you are only going to build 50 bombers or something then it is a disaster. Usually commercial airplanes can't make money unless they produce over 500 units of a design. So if you build a derivative you already have the tooling for it saves a lot of money, and similar logic flows to "rewinging" where you are only buying the tooling and factory for new wings. All that boring stuff like fuselage takes a lot of money in factory equipment to build besides the design time.
DeleteFor aircraft this is logic that gets us F-35s with A/B/C variants where maybe A is "ok" for the Air Force but B and C are pretty badly compromised for the Marines and Navy. If we take of this blogs previous ideas and lessons, we would have been better off doing a pure aircraft for the Air Force since they want to buy 500+, anyway. Continual upgrades to the F-14 and A-6 airframes probably would have served the Navy better than downsizing to F-18 and trying to lump everything into F-35C.
ComNavOps thank you for the link.
DeleteWhy not update the APD's of WW2? Those were old 4 stack destroyers converted to carrying Marine raiders on commando attacks. The 5’ could receive a retractable stealth cover similar to the ones used on the Zumwalt’s guns. Naturally the aft vls is gone, replaced with a hanger with radar absorbent panels. Inside would be the stealth helicopter variants used by the SEALS. Below decks vls space becomes berthing and weapon storage for the raiders, seals, etc. Optionally, although it requires some expensive surgery on the hull, instead of helicopter hanger above decks, there could be a submersible hanger below decks for an SDV. That would be a better radar signature than a hanger. The forward VLS and the gun could give firepower for an extraction or for direct fire support depending on where the mission is. This would be a good vessel for missions to the PI or other areas where terrain could hide insertions.
ReplyDeleteI had always thought this was what the Zumwalts should be converted to after the 155mm debacle.
I'd rather have the money o get hold of useful commercial ships in he near term. FSVs, potentially OSVs. I'd also rather sink the money into new ship construction on the low end. Quit wearing out the large ships.
ReplyDeleteA nuclear deterrence patrol vessel. I know this sounds weird but here is the reasoning. The Columbia class is rising in costs and will (if it isn't already) start slipping in delivery time. The Ohio' s are getting old. Literally everyone else is upgrading and growing their nuclear arsenals. We cannot face a gap in deterrence. Georgia and the Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons...look how that worked out.
ReplyDeleteTake retiring Burkes and load them with nuclear tomahawks. Make it announced and clear to the world that this flight of burkes (which lacks the hanger of the new ones) are now designated as interim "boomers" with TLAM-N missiles.
Are they as stealthy as boomers? No. But they already have some self-defense capability. They could be paired with an anti-missile flight IV or have their own systems upgraded.
Like nuclear bombers, they would stay close to home unless put out on alert. In the deterrence game, they don't have to be perfect. They simple have to have the potential for one ship to fire a few missiles successfully.
The MAJOR drawback to this plan is that Tomahawks only have a thousand mile range. Most nuclear strategic targets are not within range without the ship sailing right up to the enemy shore. If you can do that survivably then you've already won the war and don't need nuclear weapons. The 'beauty' of ICBMs is their range (and stealth/indestructibility in the case of boomers).
DeleteI don't agree with the solution, but a better approach might be a warhead on an SM-3 Blk IIA. This will all be wildly expensive to put in an old ship.
Delete"I don't agree with the solution, but a better approach might be a warhead on an SM-3 Blk IIA."
DeleteHaving noted that range is the major issue, you're proposing an even shorter range missile to mount a warhead on?
I think you addressed the main point that refurbishing is labor intensive.
ReplyDeleteI'm still struck by the post a few months ago about the new dry dock and how cheap that was. If we are willing to pay for the labor then there should be no constraint on shipyard capacity because the dry docks are pretty affordable and we don't need massive cranes or many of the more advanced metal cutting tools for this application. In general, labor intensive actions are things that can happen much faster than very labor efficient manufacturing that requires time to set up advanced factories and machine tools.
A program like this is also an obvious place to start rebuilding the Navy's internal engineering and architecture capacity since they shouldn't have the scope of a clean sheet design.
From what I've learned since I wrote my post on shipbuilding it seems neither the Navy or the shipyards have much engineering capability. It is all in consultants, and we know how that goes. It is possible that our assumption about "the industry designs ships now" is somewhat of a misnomer and "consultants design ships now" is more accurate. And I think anyone would agree that reducing the consultant share of design would be a massive improvement.
As far as i remember newer Burkes are missing the Harpoon launchers due tl weight/stability issues. While the proposed conversions are intriguing, Idon't know how badly they will influence the stability of the hulls. For example converting the ships with a second flight deck and new hangars requires space for additionalcrew, spars, munitions and especially fuel. Is it realistic to obtain such space with a conversion or not?
ReplyDelete"don't know how badly they will influence the stability of the hulls."
DeleteYou noted that for every addition(s) there were corresponding removal(s), right? In each conversion, the aft VLS is removed which is a major chunk of weight.
Stability and weight margin is always an issue for ships but simply requires removing enough compensatory weight to allow the conversion additions.
Is it fair to say that something similar could be done with the Tico cruisers? They are older and the aluminum superstructure is apparently both top-heavy and prone to cracks. But in a world where every hull counts, it seems crazy that they would go from 'commissioned, in service' to 'total junk, fit only for scrap' overnight.
ReplyDeleteThe sad reality is any competent administrator with some real power could find the sailors (from wasted shore duty) and money (from straight-up waste) to keep these ships in (modified) duty for years.
"Congress, the Navy, and the submarine industry, for example, all want to increase submarine production by one additional submarine per year but the shipyard capacity simply doesn’t exist."
ReplyDeleteOne thing that puzzles me about this is that, during a 10 year period in the 1980's, we commissioned an average of 3 LA boats per year, and an Ohio, in the same two yards that today lack the capacity to do TWO Virginias. Does this compute?
Given the Navy's current shortfall in ASW, I particularly like the ASW proposal, at least until the Navy can get around to build a bunch of somethings like te ASW escort that ComNavOps has proposed in his proposed fleet structure. I'm not sure how well the split level helo deck would work in practice, but perhaps the 01 level could be extended further back or some oter use could be made of tat space. I also wonder about how noisy those gas turbines are and what could be done for quieter running during ASW prosecution.
ReplyDelete" I'm not sure how well the split level helo deck would work in practice"
DeleteIt's important to bear in mind that no conversion will work as efficiently as a purpose built ship. The choice is not between perfection and a conversion but between nothing and a less than perfect conversion. With that standard in mind, a conversion - almost no matter how inefficient - is almost a sure success.
As far as the split level flight decks, I would either try to work in an elevator so that helos could move up and down as needed or I would use one deck as a sort of lily pad and the other as the main deck with hangar (meaning, maintenance) access. In other words, in you haven't got the perfect arrangement, modify your operating procedures to optimize what you do have.
" wonder about how noisy those gas turbines"
I would assume a good deal of rafting and acoustic isolation/dampening could and would take place during a conversion. I would also bear in mind that the job of a HELICOPTER destroyer is NOT to get up close and personal with subs but to stand off a safe distance and let the helos do the work. Of course, there's always the possibility of a chance close encounter but that's the risk of ASW, right? You do what you can to minimize the risk but you can't completely avoid it unless you simply don't do ASW and concede the ocean to the enemy.
Agreed...the ASW conversion is what I feel fills the biggest shortfall. With a lil creativity- maybe retrunking or moving aft funnel forward or even outboard(??), lots more hanger space could be created if needed. If you could get the capacity up to four helos, thatd be a very capable platform!!
DeleteBurke LCS. I know it sounds like a joke, but a modified stern would allow for launch/recovery of unmanned mine clearing equipment and or small boats.
DeleteSince the sensor equipment for mine detection and ASW seem to be similar these vessels could be optimized for either role and the sailors trained accordingly.
With the removal of the stern VLS, a trainable iron dome launcher could be placed on this section of the hull.
It seems that a less expensive method of downing incoming threats is also required. While lasers always seem to be on the horizon, Iron Dome missiles cost around 100,000 US dollars, is part funded by the US and I believe the Israeli's plan to integrate it onto their ships.
You would have a far more survivable and useful vessel then the LCS ever was.
Dave
"a modified stern would allow for launch/recovery of unmanned mine clearing equipment and or small boats."
DeleteTo what purpose? We've pretty well debunked the LCS' supposed missions so what would a LCS style stern accomplish?
The Navy abandoned the ASW module as unworkable. We've demonstrated that one-at-a-time mine clearance has no value in war. The ASuW module doesn't have vlaid any use for small boats. So, what are the missions you want to accomplish with a Burke-LCS?
"the sensor equipment for mine detection and ASW seem to be similar"
No. No, not at all. The mine detection is going to use the tiny AQS-20 sonar towed by a surface drone. The Navy has abandoned ASW but was going to use a variable depth sonar. Not even a remotely similar.
"iron dome"
I have not seen any documentation that Iron Dome is capable of intercepting cruise missiles (sub or super sonic) or ballistic missiles. The rockets the system was designed to intercept are, on a relative basis, slow, non-stealthy, non-maneuvering. They're just target drones compared to a modern anti-ship missile.
"You would have a far more survivable and useful vessel then the LCS ever was."
That's as low a bar as has ever existed! Do you see the major issue with your idea, though? It's purely self-defensive. It exists to defend itself. We'd like EVERY naval vessel to exist for offensive purposes, either directly (like strike) or indirectly (like protecting the strike vessels). Setting aside my other concerns with your idea, what offensive reason would you envision for this ship to exist?
Wonder if these aging Burke destroyers could be repurposed as BMD ships moored near Guam for example .
ReplyDeleteThe flight3 Burkes are BMD capable so these older Burkes would need to be upgraded.
Delete"older Burkes would need to be upgraded."
DeleteThat's not quite accurate. As of Jan 2023, 51 of the current 73 Burkes were BMD capable including many of the early Flights. Presumably, the BMD capable number has increased since then. They Burkes appear to be upgrading as availability allows. DDG-51 through DDG-63 are all BMD capable, for example.
The BMD capability is mainly a software issue although some of the earlier associated hardware is also being upgraded.
Always thought using the Ticos as moored AAW platforms would give them continued utility since the Navy is determined to get rid of them. They could totally ignore most all of the maintenance and supposed issues they use to condemn them. They might be able to run everything off shore power(?), so maybe they wouldnt even need the engine rooms utilized or manned, we could just crew them with the CIC crew and a few techs. A couple of them at Guam would certainly bolster air defenses, even if they could be overwhelmed and hit eventually.
Delete@Jj. That makes too much sense for USN!!!!!
DeleteBest post I’ve seen on here! Agree completely. The possibilities are endless. In a world of UAV swarms maybe some type of triple-A platform for the CSG. Just spitballing.
ReplyDeleteArming a Burke with, say, a dozen SeaRAM mounts would confer a potent anti-UAV swarm capability although each RAM missile is a near $1M cost. The RAM range is cited as around 6 miles which gives a 12 mile diameter protective 'bubble' around the ship. Unfortunately, in combat, ships will be spread out over a 50+ mile diameter area. Thus, single anti-swarm ships can only protect a small area although they could be assigned to high value units. A better approach would be to simply add more close in weapons to EVERY ship. The Russians are learning this lesson the hard way.
DeleteArming every ship is great, but even a few “anti-swarm” ships at the outer edges of the fleet on the most likely avenue of approaches would be potent. Small drones are likely going to have somewhat limited range and it’ll be unlikely many could make a huge journey around the circumference of fleet to approach from the opposite direction
Delete" unlikely many could make a huge journey around the circumference of fleet"
DeleteAnd if our ships only ever travelled in large fleets, that might work. However, since we seem to want to operate ships individually, every ship needs to be suitably armed. This is what Russia is discovering.
Not sure which version I like best but for sure what I would like to see DoD run a program since we have so many Burkes coming up for retirement and such a steady stream of work were a new or refurbished yard to take up all this work. Not use a yard built already in service, buy and build a yard for this Burke "recycle" program, we talking years and years of steady work. It would be the perfect program for a new build from scratch navy yard which USA desperately needs!
ReplyDelete"perfect program for a new build from scratch navy yard which USA desperately needs!"
DeleteNow that's a good idea!
@Nico Were you thinking of a Navy yard or a private one? Because I absolutely think we need another Navy yard, although it should be a nuclear capable one. On the other hand, another private yard that'd get the Burke conversion/overhaul work would be busy for quite a while, and if managed properly, could grow its facilities and expand into other work as time passes. I was intrigued by that proposal to build a yard in Ohio that would do sub work and depot level maintenance, but the geographic limits and challenges are pretty huge. Considering the WestPac conflict we're likely to see, Id suggest that West Coast yards are whats going to be needed. Itd be an uphill battle with the political and environmental leanings of the west coast states, nevermind the roadblocks the major players would help create, and we'd need a special breed of investor to put together a company willing to fight that battle. But with the maintenance struggles the Navy faces and a looming conflict, the right people could build an absolutely needed and useful facility. If I had a dumptruck or two full of million dollar bills, Id certainly be pursuing this myself.
Delete"Itd be an uphill battle with the political and environmental leanings of the west coast states"
DeleteWhich is where we need to treat this as a national security imperative and craft legislation that clears the way for new yards instead of throwing obstacles in the path.
I like the idea of an EW ship. An EW ship assigned to a naval task force would be a more useful asset than more multi million dollar missiles. The Russians and even the Aussies are going all in on EW for defensive as well as offensive operations. An electronic "shield" for operating forces should not be that far of a reach. The Russians have mobile EW platforms that can even target orbiting satellites (with in range). Would love to see the Navy put more effort into the electronic aspects of operations.
ReplyDeleteWhat about a destroyer transport, like the Japanese used to supply Guadalcanal?
ReplyDeleteIt could be used to supply Marines marooned on those secret islands with reloads of anti-ship missiles and cases of Bud Light.
Lutefisk
The concept of small, fast transports (destroyers) has generally been a failure because the underlying concept of small, isolated units is fundamentally flawed. If your logistics are so threatened that you find yourself turning to destroyer transports, you've already lost that battle.
Delete"If your logistics are so threatened that you find yourself turning to destroyer transports, you've already lost that battle."
DeleteA fitting description of the Marines sea-control-with-missiles-on-scattered-islands concept.
Lutefisk
You can't bill as much for modifying an existing ship, as you can for messing up a new construction job. Therefore, both the Navy Brass and the Defense Contractors will oppose this reasonable idea because it is a threat to their cash flow.
ReplyDeleteYou're probably right that the major, established defense industry players won't happily embrace this but one of the ideas inherent in a sustained conversion program is that it would encourage new companies to grow and expand.
DeleteIndustry values the surety of reliable, sustained, predictable work loads more so than periodic, winner-take-all, mega-projects that are subject to - and likely to - be reduced in scope. Consider the KC-46 tanker debacle. Don't you think Boeing (at least in hindsight and now, painfully, foresight) would rather have a long term, reliable, predictable, sustainable upgrade/conversion program to work on than the KC-46? I would hope that industry is beginning to learn some painful lessons. The military is incapable of learning but I hope industry can learn. Grumman's comments in the recent post suggest that they've learned some lessons.
Sorry I beg to differ based on my 30 yrs of Defense Contractor (with several companies) work. Repeatedly I have seen businesses go after work that they knew would be difficult or impossible to execute on given their current capabilitiies. In my last (hurray for retirement) recent position I was told that all of the execution issues would be opportunities if we win. The bean counters run companies and all they care about is how the next quarterly report looks like. Forget that a 2 year contract will have 1 or 2 good quarters and then 6-8 bad or very bad ones, because the people bidding it will have moved on or been promoted.
Delete" (we ought to develop a substantially longer range VL-ASROC!)"
ReplyDeleteI agree, and I started thinking about this after a discussion with you. Thanks for the ideas.
There was a proposal to build a fire support version of the Spruance class with extra 5-inch guns. This should be doable with the Burke.
"For those who are going to attempt to argue that the conversion costs would be too high, ask yourself what the cost of a brand new class of ship for each of the alternatives would be? We’re talking billions of dollars! Even the hideously expensive Australian Perry upgrade was still cheap compared to new construction. Conversions are a bargain!"
Indeed! I can't remember where I read this (it probably was several places), but after WWII the Navy made upgrades to many existing ships (and some of these upgrades were truly substantial) because it was more economical to improve a ship with some life left than built an entirely new ship.
Seems pretty straight forward to remove the hangers, and in those positions and by starting at the flight deck and adding upward, mount what looks like space for 6 to 8 additional 5" guns. Couple of more CIWS mounts as well.
Delete"space for 6 to 8 additional 5" guns."
DeleteWhoa, whoa, whoa! Pump the brakes. You understand that mounting guns is not simply a matter of measuring the requisite deck space and plopping guns down every so many feet, right? Each gun requires a magazine, ammo handling machinery, power and cooling utilities, etc. Every place you put a gun, you have to remove a large internal chunk of existing compartments to make room for the new magazines and supporting equipment. What's under the aft half of a Burke's deck? Engine rooms, shafts, and myriad other essential functions. You can't just eliminate those. With some careful redesign, there is likely room for a few extra guns but 6-8 is entering a world of fantasy!
Well we are fantasizing here a bit regardless aren't we? That said, when I look at a Fletcher Deck plan and place it over a Burke Deck plan the density of guns on the Fletcher can easily place two rows of guns on the Burke, which lead to my math. I'm thinking add decks for the magazines and other below deck requirements, and I know I'm ignoring stability issues for sure, but that can be resolved too. If I'm wrong by double, that's still 3 or 4 guns.
DeleteAnd 3 or 4 is what I proposed in the post.
DeleteAn alternative approach is to use dual 5" mounts. Of course, we no longer have dual mounts but it wouldn't be that hard to develop them. It's just two single 5" guns side by side. We did it in WWII so no reason we can't today. Three dual mounts would give us 6x 5" guns.