Arleigh Burke Class ASW

The beauty of VLS is that you dont need to touch it very much when you are underway.

Quite correct and when shut down as part of NBC procedures you don’t need to send some poor sap topside to reload and get exposed to nasties.

21″ fish, and similar cannisters intended to be fired through the same tubes, are remarkably awkward things to shunt around a ship.

And then some! I had a vision of using below decks. Thus removing some of the design pressure on laying helo ops, masts, VLS, uncle Tom cobbly and all all on the single plane. The issue there of course being penetration of the hull with potential NBC and NBCD issues.

I’m pretty much resigned to ladies weapons as regards skimmers and their fish.

I think we stand on the brink of a considerable revolution in naval battlespace coverage and that is the move to long endurance offboard sensors.

Agreed.

There is potential for AEW and AESW (clumsy new made up acronym I know) feeding all units. AAW destroyers as pickets far from high value units is a mugs game but give those vessels their own high endurance AEW and suddenly they look much more survivable.

Al

Another one to file under genuinely interesting. Thankyou for that number crunching, I had honestly not looked at the situation that way.

Quite welcome.

I still think that NATO skimmers should have man-sized fish (with the added advantage that the tubes can be used to deploy Cruise Missiles and AShMs leaving the VLS for SAMs and giving a nice uncluttered groundplane up top) but you have shot a big hole in my assumptions.

The beauty of VLS is that you dont need to touch it very much when you are underway. 21″ fish, and similar cannisters intended to be fired through the same tubes, are remarkably awkward things to shunt around a ship. The tubes/launchers bring in a fair amount of ship impact as well. The Russian Neustrashimy’s have a fairly tidy setup in this regard but its still a significant installation and, you wonder, if the ASW Klub round had been mature and available when the ship was designed whether they would have kept the angled torpedo launchers?.

* I hope against hope that AEW is not going to disappear again only to be replaced when its lack is shown to be so dangerous

I think we stand on the brink of a considerable revolution in naval battlespace coverage and that is the move to long endurance offboard sensors. Now we are all fighting the littoral fight UAV, USV and UUV’s, even at the modest capability levels available today, become significant value platforms. US programmes in USV/UUV ASW as linked to LCS are case in point. The other relates to what you state about AEW/ISTAR.

Above is the A-160T UAV (seen here trialling the DARPA Forester overland tactical radar system). This is a high endurance, 12hrs+ on-station, platform with decent onboard power generation capabilities. Its value in providing persistent look-down radar coverage to an extended fleet assembly area is obvious. It is also the kind of platform that could be deployed from an LPD, escort or even an auxilliary attached to even the most modest of ARG’s.

Coupled to CEC/SM-6 shooting capability in the escort force you could envisage shooting sea-skimming inbounds 50 miles or more over the horizon from the group – without need of a specialist aviation ship. IMO this kind of distributed and scaled/interlocking AEW/ISTAR – starting at the Firescout/A-160 level, through MALE/HALE UAV platforms to the peak at Hawkeye-level for Fleet/bluewater ops – is achievable and very much the way forward.

Simply because the Mk32’s dont take up much space and they keep the submarines back a bit. If you are firing a 35knt torpedo at an escort that can do 30knts, and get there quickly, then all you have is a 5knt advantage to play with. If you shoot from 10000yds (5nm) it’ll take the torpedo an hour to catch up – if your fish can run for 30nm!!!.

Firing torpedoes then, unless your target is slow or stupid, is something best done very close in. Mk32 coupled to even a modest MF ship-mount set is a good way of encouraging a submarine driver to hesitate before getting too close for very modest expense and ship impact. The newer magazine-fed STWS systems are even better than the venerable Mk32’s though as they feed off the same torpedoes as the ships flight uses. Nice and efficient solution that one.

Another one to file under genuinely interesting. Thankyou for that number crunching, I had honestly not looked at the situation that way.

I still think that NATO skimmers should have man-sized fish (with the added advantage that the tubes can be used to deploy Cruise Missiles and AShMs leaving the VLS for SAMs and giving a nice uncluttered groundplane up top) but you have shot a big hole in my assumptions.

Personally I think that putting the torpedoes on rockets about the ship and letting the choppers do their hunting without being weighed down with ordnance is smarter, but, thats just a personal opinion!!!.

That appears to be the way that AAW is moving (away from CAP flying with long range missiles and towards more effective ship mounted SAMs*) and AShMs (witness the numbers of Cruise Missiles and AShMs mounted on skimmers rather than loaded on airframes and deployed thence) so it could very well be a model for ASW as well.

Al

* I hope against hope that AEW is not going to disappear again only to be replaced when its lack is shown to be so dangerous

Aren’t the current LM2500 systems much improved over the originals? More power/less fuel burn, etc? The aircraft engines upon which they are based made many, many improvements throughout the life of the CF-6 program, going from the CF6-6 to the CF6-80C. One would hope the noise signature had been improved also, but I confess I have no knowledge of such.

I figure, so long as they are in a well sound proofed enclosure, the noise level of the unit is not the issue.

The later Arleigh Burke destroyers are powered by the same drive train as the Ticonderoga cruisers and Spruance destroyers, namely four General Electric LM 2500 gas turbine engines (LM 2500-30 gas turbine engines in the case of the Flight IIA ships). Propulsion is provided by two shafts with variable pitch screws. They too have the PRAIRIE-MASKER system.

Aren’t the current LM2500 systems much improved over the originals? More power/less fuel burn, etc? The aircraft engines upon which they are based made many, many improvements throughout the life of the CF-6 program, going from the CF6-6 to the CF6-80C. One would hope the noise signature had been improved also, but I confess I have no knowledge of such.

Thanks for the replise guys!

what are some other issues (structual mechaincal electircal) with the Burke that are not ASW?

what are some kudos it has gotten?

also what are some Realisitic upgrades we can expect?

Well, the all Gtu plant helped. The propulsion machinery is very quiet. The whole engine installations are insulated against the own noise and that promotes the ASUW and the operation of the sonar installations. Also, IIRC they had the PRAIRIE-MASKER hull and propeller bubbler systems installed to enhance their quietness.

The Spruance class as was commissioned between 1975 and 1983. It was the first U.S. ship class to use gas-turbine propulsion and advanced self-noise reduction technology and a high degree of automation. By contrast, the first Type 23 was commissioned in 1989 and preceeded by at least 2 classes of Gtu powered ships! Thus unfair to compare to the much later Type 23.

The later Arleigh Burke destroyers are powered by the same drive train as the Ticonderoga cruisers and Spruance destroyers, namely four General Electric LM 2500 gas turbine engines (LM 2500-30 gas turbine engines in the case of the Flight IIA ships). Propulsion is provided by two shafts with variable pitch screws. They too have the PRAIRIE-MASKER system.

Indeed Wan I was not attempting to compare a Spruance with a T23 and wouldnt do such a thing. The point I was making was that a ‘big GT propelled destroyer’ could not compare with something modern and discrete (in today’s terms). That was the reason for the comment that in ASW terms an Arleigh Burke was not a great platform for todays littoral ASW battlespace as its a fairly sizeable accoustic target.

The comment is meant as no criticism, Arleigh Burke is a blue-water hull – the USN know this and is the reason for LCS, simply that if you were in someone elses littoral facing an SSK threat you would choose to be on something more like a Duke than a Burke given the opportunity!.

If they were so quiet Wan why was that SQR-19 quite so long an array! 🙂

Seriously they were blue water platforms with the intent to get detects at least 2CZ’s off with the tail before Sov SSN’s of the vintage could get much of a sniff. Were they ‘quiet’?. Only in the sense that they were less noisy than the equivalent steam and turbine powered escorts of the day.

Same sort of thing as the Victor-III’s. Were they quiet and discrete…..compared to Vic-1 and -II yes. See my point?! :p

Well, the all Gtu plant helped. The propulsion machinery is very quiet. The whole engine installations are insulated against the own noise and that promotes the ASUW and the operation of the sonar installations. Also, IIRC they had the PRAIRIE-MASKER hull and propeller bubbler systems installed to enhance their quietness.

The Spruance class as was commissioned between 1975 and 1983. It was the first U.S. ship class to use gas-turbine propulsion and advanced self-noise reduction technology and a high degree of automation. By contrast, the first Type 23 was commissioned in 1989 and preceeded by at least 2 classes of Gtu powered ships! Thus unfair to compare to the much later Type 23.

The later Arleigh Burke destroyers are powered by the same drive train as the Ticonderoga cruisers and Spruance destroyers, namely four General Electric LM 2500 gas turbine engines (LM 2500-30 gas turbine engines in the case of the Flight IIA ships). Propulsion is provided by two shafts with variable pitch screws. They too have the PRAIRIE-MASKER system.

Ah, I see. Thanks. You had me scratching my head there for a while, wondering what I was missing! 😀

While I do think that the Type 23 is more silent than the Spruance (or at the very least, has more silencing measures in place), I don’t quite understand how length of the array is supposed to correlate with platform discreetness? As I understand the Type 2031 is more than twice the length of TACTAS, which, along with the excellent silencing of the Type 23, gave it its outstanding performance.

Sorry YF that was intended as a tongue-in-cheek response and not serious. Obviously there are many parameters that dictate the length of a towed array and ownship noise only being one factor.

If they were so quiet Wan why was that SQR-19 quite so long an array!

While I do think that the Type 23 is more silent than the Spruance (or at the very least, has more silencing measures in place), I don’t quite understand how length of the array is supposed to correlate with platform discreetness? As I understand the Type 2031 is more than twice the length of TACTAS, which, along with the excellent silencing of the Type 23, gave it its outstanding performance.

Well, the Spruances weren’t exactly small yet very quiet in their day So much so they were deployed away from other ships, or so I’ve read.

If they were so quiet Wan why was that SQR-19 quite so long an array! 🙂

Seriously they were blue water platforms with the intent to get detects at least 2CZ’s off with the tail before Sov SSN’s of the vintage could get much of a sniff. Were they ‘quiet’?. Only in the sense that they were less noisy than the equivalent steam and turbine powered escorts of the day.

Same sort of thing as the Victor-III’s. Were they quiet and discrete…..compared to Vic-1 and -II yes. See my point?! :p

Then you have the issue that the Burke design is a big GT propelled destroyer and accoustically presents a profile as such. Contrasted against a design optimised for ASW, like Type 23, the Burke would be a very much easier target for counter detection and tracking from the submarine.

Well, the Spruances weren’t exactly small yet very quiet in their day So much so they were deployed away from other ships, or so I’ve read.

A few questions:

Why has the USN stuck with those dinky Mk32 tubes over all these years? Would they even be useful for hunting subs (they surely wouldn’t outrange a decent 21″ torp that just about every submarine carries)? What would their utility be against an incoming 21″ torpedo? Do Burkes and Ticos routinely carry VL-Asroc? Why hasn’t the USN come up with a standoff ASW missile along the lines of the cancelled Sea Lance?

Simply because the Mk32’s dont take up much space and they keep the submarines back a bit. If you are firing a 35knt torpedo at an escort that can do 30knts, and get there quickly, then all you have is a 5knt advantage to play with. If you shoot from 10000yds (5nm) it’ll take the torpedo an hour to catch up – if your fish can run for 30nm!!!.

Firing torpedoes then, unless your target is slow or stupid, is something best done very close in. Mk32 coupled to even a modest MF ship-mount set is a good way of encouraging a submarine driver to hesitate before getting too close for very modest expense and ship impact. The newer magazine-fed STWS systems are even better than the venerable Mk32’s though as they feed off the same torpedoes as the ships flight uses. Nice and efficient solution that one.

Why hasnt some latter-day Sea Lance been developed….I’d imagine that there is no requirement for one. RoE’s are going to be strict about dropping live homing torpedoes tens of miles away without a very positive ID before launch. Plus choppers are already embarked that can do the job plus do the hunting as well?. Personally I think that putting the torpedoes on rockets about the ship and letting the choppers do their hunting without being weighed down with ordnance is smarter, but, thats just a personal opinion!!!.

The problem with the Burkes is that the ASW is largely geared to blue-water. Where still fitted the Burke tail, TACTAS, is a VLF passive job thats just great for detecting Vic-III’s at three CZ’s in the Atlantic (tongue-in-cheek!). Its not so good for facing off against a well handled SSK in the shallows.

The 53C hull sonar is a powerful MF set that has, allegedly, had some tweaks for better shallow water performance, but, it has the limits all such ship-mount sets have.

Then you have the issue that the Burke design is a big GT propelled destroyer and accoustically presents a profile as such. Contrasted against a design optimised for ASW, like Type 23, the Burke would be a very much easier target for counter detection and tracking from the submarine.

A few questions:

Why has the USN stuck with those dinky Mk32 tubes over all these years? Would they even be useful for hunting subs (they surely wouldn’t outrange a decent 21″ torp that just about every submarine carries)? What would their utility be against an incoming 21″ torpedo? Do Burkes and Ticos routinely carry VL-Asroc? Why hasn’t the USN come up with a standoff ASW missile along the lines of the cancelled Sea Lance?

I think that’d make more sense, since the Flight IIAs lack a towed array. If anybody knows, or comes across info on where it’d go on, please do post.

1st array to be delivered in this June. No idea which ship’s going to receive it first. Apparently, it’d provide a bi-static capability as well.

Onto one of the Burkes 103 et seq?

1st array to be delivered in this June. No idea which ship’s going to receive it first. Apparently, it’d provide a bi-static capability as well.

YF,

Yep it is and I’ve seen a piece from LockMart saying that they were awarded the production contract for the array. I’ve not heard anything about a production array being completed and installed though?. You have anything?

Cheers,
Steve

The MFTA is supposed to replace the TACTAS, and presumably that’d be more effective in the littorals. The thing is I can’t find any confirmation if it’s going onto the Flight IIAs as well, considering the Flight IIAs still have the space and weight to carry towed arrays according to some accounts.