S. Korean Navy Sejong (KDX III) destroyers

bd popeye · Mar 24, 2011

like the structure problems in the old Tic cruiser with its spurance hull?

My son served on a Tico and a Spru-can and neither had structural problems..In fact the Spruance class DD he served on, USS Paul F Foster DD-964, is still in service as a Self Defense Test Ship for Naval Surface Warfare Center, Port Hueneme CA.

Foster was decommissioned on March 27, 2003. In 2004, Foster was designated to replace ex-Decatur as the Navy's Self Defense Test Ship, a role she assumed in 2005. In support of this new role, she is assigned to Naval Surface Warfare Center, Port Hueneme Division. [1]In 2008, Foster was used in an episode of NCIS (Road Kill) portraying USS Rubicon, a ship about to be decommissioned.[2] As of 2010, Foster is the last surviving example of the Spruance Class.

This is from another forum and not written by me..

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

When LBNSY(Long Beach Naval Shipyard) was the planning yard for the Spruances, I was assigned as the structural project leader (especially designing the armor plate put on some of them). There were only two hull problems that I recall.

1) The alignment between the Ingalls bult bow and its knife edge were always misaligned with the Canadian built bow mounted SONAR dome. We had to do a lot of weld build ups and days of grinding to make it symetrical.

2) The after part of the hull was vulnerable to overzealous tug boat captains. Almost every ship had a at least a football sized dent back aft in the Carbon Manganese steel (latest equivilant to HTS) plating. If it was between shell stiffeners, we left it alone and called it only cosmetic damage. But if the dent damaged one of the longitudinal frames, then a repair was warranted.

The worst structural problem was there was no expansion joint in the aluminum superstructure and kept getting cracks running up from 02 level to 03 level. We had to design some hefty reinforcement brackets in the corners where the diagonal bulkhead from the forward superstructure met met the narrow section amidships. The Tycos did not have this problem as that corner was designed with a much larger radius to distribute the loadings.

pugachev_diver · Mar 24, 2011

My son served on a Tico and a Spru-can and neither had structural problems..In fact the Spruance class DD he served on, USS Paul F Foster DD-964, is still in service as a Self Defense Test Ship for Naval Surface Warfare Center, Port Hueneme CA.

Do you think the US navy would build another giant ship similar to Ticonderoga of its day? I mean the Arleigh Burkes are getting bigger and bigger by the day, Ticonderoga as cruisers are no longer so massive compared to the current destroyers. Do you think there will be bigger ships? Similar to the current Russian Varyag and Peter the Great?

Jeff Head · Mar 24, 2011

pugachev_diver said:
Do you think the US navy would build another giant ship similar to Ticonderoga of its day? I mean the Arleigh Burkes are getting bigger and bigger by the day, Ticonderoga as cruisers are no longer so massive compared to the current destroyers. Do you think there will be bigger ships? Similar to the current Russian Varyag and Peter the Great?

The US is going to build three DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class DDGs which will really be cruisers and will be 10,000 tons+.

I believe they should build a Burke derivitive as a bridge cruiser design that would be a take-off and improved South Korean Sejong Class (KDX-III) design.

Ultimately the US plans to build a CGX, which will be the replacement for the Tico cruisers.

Here's a couple of pages:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I just posted a thread about the Zumwalt here on SD.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Jeff Head · Mar 24, 2011

i.e. said:
I heard that the old Gibbs & Cox hull design for Burke might be bumping up against its limit as these scaled up Burkes hitting the 10,000 ton mark? like the structure problems in the old Tic cruiser with its spurance hull?

The S. Korean KDX-III is out in the field and working, and has exercised with US forces.

The US can and (IMHO) should build a dozen inproved versions of the Sejong, incorporating the AGS and other things (perhaps DBR), etc. And use that as a bridge to the CGX.

i.e. · Mar 24, 2011

Jeff Head said:
The S. Korean KDX-III is out in the field and working, and has exercised with US forces.

The US can and (IMHO) should build a dozen inproved versions of the Sejong, incorporating the AGS and other things (perhaps DBR), etc. And use that as a bridge to the CGX.

I know that KDX-III is built and in service.
when Tic Hull structure problem was discovered it was built and working too.
things like these don't always show up/ predicted by the builder/designer's analysis.

I am sure Gibbs & Cox is already aware that there is a upper limit on the basic hull and structure beyond which you will have problems.

bd popeye · Mar 24, 2011

when Tic Hull structure problem was discovered it was built and working too.
things like these don't always show up/ predicted by the builder/designer's analysis.

True that but the Ticos problems are solved. 22 Ticonderoga class Aegis cruisers are still in service with the USN. SK shipyards like most shipyards build quality ships. I'm sure any problems or defects will be corrected. That's what shakedown cruises are for.

i.e. · Mar 24, 2011

bd popeye said:
True that but the Ticos problems are solved. 22 Ticonderoga class Aegis cruisers are still in service with the USN. SK shipyards like most shipyards build quality ships. I'm sure any problems or defects will be corrected. That's what shakedown cruises are for.

My point was, from a naval archeticture / engineering perspective, that the basic hull structure could be lengthen/stretch over loaded to a point, beyond which there would be problems (Ticos were also bit top heavy were they not?). original Burke hull were I am sure over designed to take on more tonnage as the basic design grew over flights. but I am sure there is a limit.

there are problems that only after years out at sea will show up.

Jeff Head · Mar 24, 2011

i.e. said:
I know that KDX-III is built and in service.
when Tic Hull structure problem was discovered it was built and working too.
things like these don't always show up/ predicted by the builder/designer's analysis.

I am sure Gibbs & Cox is already aware that there is a upper limit on the basic hull and structure beyond which you will have problems.

They knew the Ticos were going to be a little top heavy...but they judged (correctly) that they would not be dangrous and they got them out there and corrected the issues with improvements.

Time and history has shown that they were right. There are still 22 of them serving very capably, and they are very powerful combatants.

I wish they had not done in the Spruance class so soon. They had a lot of years left on their hulls, and the class was built with the idea of interchangability and upgrades...ie the way they changed over to and upgraded to the VLS system on the fore deck of the ships. But, all in all, the Burke is even better and we sure have plenty of them now..62 or more at last count.

Anyhow, the design for the KDX-III is a good and powerful design from all I can see...there has not been the kind of speculation about it that I heard before the Ticos were finished...time will tell.

Spartan95 · Mar 26, 2011

pugachev_diver said:
i think it would be pointless for a small nation like south korea to invest so heavily into its navy.

RoK depends on the sea for a lot of things.

Imports:
1. Most of its energy is imported (oil and natural gas). Quite a bit of this is brought in by ships.
2. Most of the raw materials used in its manufacturing industries are also imported. They are used to make products ranging from cars to ships to mobile phones to LCD/LED TVs.

Exports:
1. Exports form a sizeable portion of the RoK economy. Samsung electronic products (TVs, phones, DVD players, etc), LG electonic products, Hyundai vehicles, Daewoo vehicles, etc.

Now, where do you think RoK's economy will be if their navy is unable to protect the sea lanes where all these imports and exports go through?

cirvine11 · Apr 24, 2011

So why are these cruisers called destroyers? Politics? Both this ship and the Japanese Kongo's should be reclassified by Janes.

S. Korean Navy Sejong (KDX III) destroyers

bd popeye

The Last Jedi

pugachev_diver

Banned Idiot

Jeff Head

General

Jeff Head

General

i.e.

Senior Member

bd popeye

The Last Jedi

i.e.

Senior Member

Jeff Head

General

Spartan95

Junior Member

cirvine11

New Member