Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
JohnPJones

do we need more Burkes?

84 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
2,960 posts
6,734 battles

just a quick discussion. according to wikipedia we have 66 burkes and have 11 more planned.

if my math is correct that's about 5.5 burkes per carrier, so do we need more?  again if my math is correct 11 burkes comes out to around $19.8b if we cancelled the last 11 and waited until we had the FFG(X) program set on a design which the navy said should be cost around $800m if i'm not mistaken we could get 22 of the new hulls for  $17.6b which saves us $2.2b that can be used for training, and allows for more ships the reduce the felt work load of the foreseeable op-tempo allowing for more down time for sailors to decompress and help avoid future incidents like we've recently seen.

but do we really need a total of 77 burkes when many of them will spend a significant amount of time doing things like hunt pirates and simply showing the flag for interoperability cruises, jobs that could be done with smaller more affordable vessels?

survivability is kind of up to luck since the Stark took two exocets and the samuel b roberts hit a mine and both survived at 4100tons and the sheffield sunk from 2 exocets at 4500tons, but the frigate variant of the NSC should be plenty survivable in case it does take a hit a 4600tons.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
909
[TSF_1]
Members
3,301 posts
7,631 battles

Since, say, WWII, our ships per carrier in a group has gone down, but to be fair, the reach and power of any one ship has improved. I think our current force can be stretched perilously thin very easily, but climbing out of the hole we've been digging ourselves won't be easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,717
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,533 posts
12,810 battles

Given the Op tempo, yes.  I'd like to see more cruisers too.  Frankly, I feel with the advances that the Chinese have made with their own Aegis-like systems, a CV strike package is a risky proposition.  If CVs can't strike, ASMs is the best way to take them on, and our SSW capabilities have atrophied.  Having a fleet full of AA ships won't win you a battle and I just don't think that SM6 is the answer.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
706
[WOLF9]
Members
4,310 posts

  Aren't some of those Burkes getting a little long in the tooth by now?   Some of them might not be worth the $$ of bringing them up to flight III standards, and some do not even have hangars.  (Speaking of the OG flight I's)

  Might be interesting if they were to build the new ones with some capabilities the others don't have.

  Interesting idea, shifting those funds to the FFG program, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are other concerns in play.  keeping the supply chain for the Burkes active;  contract concerns; politicking, (after all, those ship builders are in someone's congressional district, and they provide a number of good paying jobs...) etc.

  Anyhow, I'm just spitballing here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,358
[--K--]
[--K--]
Members
4,226 posts
19,243 battles

 Well since you've already have the production lines  set and the class  is still good  and you know the ins and outs of it keep it going and you can always sell the old ones

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,480
[O_O]
[O_O]
Members
4,454 posts
19,916 battles

Those numbers for the FFG(X) you mentioned will go up an easy 40 or 50%. That's just a "procurement tradition". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
746
[HELLS]
Members
2,569 posts
25,500 battles

The Brits offered an FFG(X) option to the USN in bid at half the price noted here for US-built FFG(X) ships. The RN, the RCN, the RAN and several other navies would be automatic buyers if the USN overcomes the ''Not Invented Here, Not Designed, Here, Not Built Here'' that the prototype 1st in class build requires, as it would be built in the UK. Congress will say  ''Yes'' to a foreign design when ''Hell Freezes Over''!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,146
[LEGIO]
Members
3,391 posts
7,330 battles

If we were getting some other new classes of warship I don't think we'd need them but it looks like the only other new ship class coming online in the next decade will be FFG(X).

 

I would like to see a new guided missile cruiser, one that is actually cruiser sized versus the Ticonderogas which were just overgrown Spruances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
691
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,118 posts

Need more Burkes to relieve tempo strain on the existing fleet AND to replace the Ticonderogas that are reaching the end of their hull lives.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,960 posts
6,734 battles

In the short term yes I agree but if we could get the $800m FFG(X) into production in the next two or three years, we coufl build 2 for the  price of a Burke and still save 2-3 million dollars which would relieve op-tempo strain even more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,960 posts
6,734 battles
On 12/11/2017 at 10:23 PM, Lampshade_M1A2 said:

If we were getting some other new classes of warship I don't think we'd need them but it looks like the only other new ship class coming online in the next decade will be FFG(X).

 

I would like to see a new guided missile cruiser, one that is actually cruiser sized versus the Ticonderogas which were just overgrown Spruances.

I would like to see cruiser sized cruisers as well...but I think a cruiser variant of the AB would be the best since as has been said we have the production lines and know the style well.

id go with 128-150vls and replace the the mk38s with 40mk4s

ideally id like to see the 5” replaces with a mk71 8” gun but I know there’s like a 99% chance that it won’t  happen 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,960 posts
6,734 battles
On 12/11/2017 at 7:52 PM, pewpewpew42 said:

Since, say, WWII, our ships per carrier in a group has gone down, but to be fair, the reach and power of any one ship has improved. I think our current force can be stretched perilously thin very easily, but climbing out of the hole we've been digging ourselves won't be easy.

Ya considering AAW advancements it’s not so hit or miss on if you can successfully engage/defeat  an aerial target we don’t need 3 cruisers and 8 destroyers or anything like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,830
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,762 posts
2,134 battles

I for one agree on a new cruiser class. If I'm not mistaken one of the big reasons no one wants to throw out the Tico's is because they're still the best missile platforms in the USN with 128 VLS.

Getting a nice, large modern hull better equipped for a surface action would be nice, and finally allow us to let the Tico's go - and those things must be fairly expensive to maintain, between their age and parts availability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,960 posts
6,734 battles
1 hour ago, Phoenix_jz said:

I for one agree on a new cruiser class. If I'm not mistaken one of the big reasons no one wants to throw out the Tico's is because they're still the best missile platforms in the USN with 128 VLS.

Getting a nice, large modern hull better equipped for a surface action would be nice, and finally allow us to let the Tico's go - and those things must be fairly expensive to maintain, between their age and parts availability.

Something similar to the Sejong the great class, which is basically a 600ft AB.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,830
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,762 posts
2,134 battles
3 hours ago, JohnPJones said:

Something similar to the Sejong the great class, which is basically a 600ft AB.

 

 

Yeah, a series of something like those would be phenomenal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,960 posts
6,734 battles
4 hours ago, Phoenix_jz said:

 

Yeah, a series of something like those would be phenomenal.

but bigger obviously, can't have a cruiser smaller than one of our destroyers :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
10,676 posts
On 12/12/2017 at 10:08 AM, crzyhawk said:

Given the Op tempo, yes.  I'd like to see more cruisers too.  Frankly, I feel with the advances that the Chinese have made with their own Aegis-like systems, a CV strike package is a risky proposition.  If CVs can't strike, ASMs is the best way to take them on, and our SSW capabilities have atrophied.  Having a fleet full of AA ships won't win you a battle and I just don't think that SM6 is the answer.

 

An air defense capable of taking out carrier air strikes would also have a good chance of stopping ASMs as well.

 

Hence, you need the third option, which is submarines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,960 posts
6,734 battles
4 hours ago, Eisennagel said:

 

An air defense capable of taking out carrier air strikes would also have a good chance of stopping ASMs as well.

 

Hence, you need the third option, which is submarines.

Missiles are cheaper than planes loaded with missiles though :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,717
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,533 posts
12,810 battles
4 hours ago, Eisennagel said:

 

An air defense capable of taking out carrier air strikes would also have a good chance of stopping ASMs as well.

 

Hence, you need the third option, which is submarines.

airstrikes have ~90 birds max, with human pilots.  ASMs are smaller, and risk no human pilots.  ASMs can also be launched en masse to overwhelm air defenses, something a single carrier could struggle with.  Also, cruisers (lets be real, Burkes are AA cruisers in all but name) are a metric F load cheaper than CVNs are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,960 posts
6,734 battles
1 hour ago, crzyhawk said:

airstrikes have ~90 birds max, with human pilots.  ASMs are smaller, and risk no human pilots.  ASMs can also be launched en masse to overwhelm air defenses, something a single carrier could struggle with.  Also, cruisers (lets be real, Burkes are AA cruisers in all but name) are a metric F load cheaper than CVNs are.

90 birds armed with 2 or more vampires...

even 45 birds with 2 or more vampires would be able to conduct saturation missile stacks better than ships...

 

even if the US brought TASM or LRASM online tomorrow you’d be hard pressed to get the same level of saturation since SAMs will still likely take up most VLS cells.

16 ASMs per ship would probably be the max, so even with an entire carrier escort you’re getting about half or less of ASMs that half a carrier air wing can deliver...and chances are you’ll need aircraft using their radar to locate and spot the enemy any way so pilots will still be in danger.

 

(lets be real they’re destroyers. Random dudes on the internet don’t get to arbitrarily reclassify a Navy’s ships)

Edited by JohnPJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
691
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,118 posts

Considering modern aircraft can carry 6-8 ASMs each and the USN has been moving towards a single unified aircraft to occupy the decks of her carriers (The Super Hornet and now the upcoming Lightning 2). that's 90 x 8 or if you're using overstrength loading, almost 120 x 8 (But you obviously have no room for repair parts and additional flight support, it's all one big mega strike). That's enough ordnance to sink any known battlegroup on the ocean today.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,960 posts
6,734 battles
3 minutes ago, TornadoADV said:

Considering modern aircraft can carry 6-8 ASMs each and the USN has been moving towards a single unified aircraft to occupy the decks of her carriers (The Super Hornet and now the upcoming Lightning 2). that's 90 x 8 or if you're using overstrength loading, almost 120 x 8 (But you obviously have no room for repair parts and additional flight support, it's all one big mega strike). That's enough ordnance to sink any known battlegroup on the ocean today.

To be fair at least some aircraft would probably be held back as CAP :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
10,676 posts
48 minutes ago, TornadoADV said:

Considering modern aircraft can carry 6-8 ASMs each and the USN has been moving towards a single unified aircraft to occupy the decks of her carriers (The Super Hornet and now the upcoming Lightning 2). that's 90 x 8 or if you're using overstrength loading, almost 120 x 8 (But you obviously have no room for repair parts and additional flight support, it's all one big mega strike). That's enough ordnance to sink any known battlegroup on the ocean today.

 

Each aircraft will also be mega vulnerable.  Lots of ASMs means a lot of drag and weight, and each ASM adds to the radar signature of the aircraft much less having six to eight of them to help light up on an enemy fighter's radar, AWAC or ship air defense system.   The carrying aircraft would also be unresponsive and weighty when those AAMs starts coming in.  An F-35 cannot carry ASMs inside its internal bay, it would have to carry it outside, which totally spoils its radar signature and make it light up on enemy radar.  

 

Something will have to fly CAP, and a lot will have to fly CAP.

Edited by Eisennagel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,960 posts
6,734 battles
12 minutes ago, Eisennagel said:

 

Each aircraft will also be mega vulnerable.  Lots of ASMs means a lot of drag and weight, and each ASM adds to the radar signature of the aircraft much less having six to eight of them to help light up on an enemy fighter's radar, AWACor ship air defense system.   The carrying aircraft would also be unresponsive and weighty when those AAMs starts coming in.  An F-35 cannot carry ASMs inside its internal bay, it would have to carry it outside, which totally spoils its radar signature and make it light up on enemy radar.  

 

Something will have to fly CAP, and a lot will have to fly CAP.

Still 25 planes with 6 ASMs with cover from 25 more leaves 40 back for CAP and way more ASMs inbound than the carrier’s escorts can realistically send

 

150 ASMs is enough to cripple if not sink any modern battle group if I’m not mistaken 

Edited by JohnPJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×