USN Burke Class - News, Reports, Data, etc.

Discussion in 'World Armed Forces' started by Jeff Head, Sep 26, 2012.

  1. kwaigonegin
    Offline

    kwaigonegin Colonel

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    4,362
    Likes Received:
    5,160
    I think you're reading too much into what was said brutha.. Lol I don't think it should be a new class either for obvious reasons but it was more a figure of speech as in the changes are so significant it might as well be a 'new' class of ship.that does not mean I think we should give it a new name lol.
     
    Bernard and Jeff Head like this.
  2. Bltizo
    Offline

    Bltizo Lieutenant General

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    12,084
    Likes Received:
    14,759
    I of course appreciate you're not saying the Flight III should be called a new class, only that its upgrades means it "might as well be" a "new" class of ship... but I'm saying that the upgrades it's received is still not enough for it to "might as well be" called a "new" class, when looking at other ships which received upgrades to actually be called a new class.

    I also appreciate that you were making the statement in an off hand way, but I felt the need to clarify that from my point of view the statement is not entirely true in a recent historical context.
    I.e.: IMO the Flight III Burke has received upgrades which make it a new and capable variant of the overall Burke class and the Flight IIA in particular, but it is still very very far from receiving the extent of upgrades or differences from Flight IIA to come close to being entertained as a "new" class of ship.
     
    Jeff Head likes this.
  3. Brumby
    Offline

    Brumby Major

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    3,148
    Likes Received:
    3,321
    I have been somewhat reluctant to get into a more substantive discussion on the subject of the significance of the upgrades that had gone onto Flight III because it is OT and maybe these discussions should be moved to the Burke/Flight III thread. I am not interested in a conversation on whether Flight III is a new class or not but I do share Kwai's opinion that the changes there are incorporated into Flight III are more significant relative to earlier Flight changes. I am interested though in your view and how you get to the conclusion that the changes from Type 052C to get to Type 052D are more significant comparatively. I would be interested in the metrics that you have applied to get to your conclusion.
     
    Jeff Head likes this.
  4. Jeff Head
    Offline

    Jeff Head General
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    24,073
    Likes Received:
    32,101
    IMHO, the change from Burke I and II to Flight IIA was a more substantial change in terms of any talk of them being a "different" class.

    The structure of the ship was substantively changed, and significant new capabilities were added. Adding the entire structure and capability for housing two helicopters on the ship was indeed a substantive structural change...and I believe more so than going from IIA to III.

    IIA to III is a big change, do not get me wrong. But for the most part it is a scaling of existing capabilities, not new capabilities altogether. It is true it is new equipment, but it is better equipment that performs the same basic function, and in the same physical locations for the most part.

    There were many in the community that thought IIA should have been the Oscar Austin Class. but the Navy determined not to do so. Just as it has also determined not to do so with the Flight III vessels.

    I believe it will be that major change to the Class.
     
    #134 Jeff Head, Dec 14, 2015
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2015
    Bernard likes this.
  5. Brumby
    Offline

    Brumby Major

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    3,148
    Likes Received:
    3,321
    I would just add a couple of pertinent points. Firstly, we need to be distinctly clear on the main premise of the subject and that is whether it is about the significance of any structural change as oppose to the significance in enhanced capabilities that the changes bring about or a mix of the above. Secondly, on the nature of whether it is a different class or not, I believe the US procurement politics come into play. If I am not mistaken, flight changes as opposed to a new class is subject to rather different approval process with the former being a matter of expediency.
     
    Bernard and Jeff Head like this.
  6. Bltizo
    Offline

    Bltizo Lieutenant General

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    12,084
    Likes Received:
    14,759
    Continued from the Zumwalt thread.

    Well, the structural modifications for Flight III Burke from Flight IIA are all essentially to allow the ship to accomodate the SPY-6, with upgrades in the combat management system, and increasing the electrical power generation capacity slightly as well to provide enough juice for the SPY-6s (3 x 3 MW generators replaced by 3 x 4 MW generators).

    In other words, I see the sum of the structural changes and subsystem improvement changes between Flight IIA to Flight III as mostly related to the new AMDR it will host. As far as I understand there is minimal structural change to the bow or the aft of the ship (most of the changes appear to be limited to amidships near the superstructure), there will also be no modification of the ship's armament in any way between Flight IIA and III.

    In other words, I think this picture quite accurately boils down the core changes between Flight IIA and III, and all the structural changes and upgrades in combat management etc are made in accordance to the changes listed here.
    [​IMG]

    Between 052C and 052D on the other hand, there were major changes in structure, sensors and electronics, armament, all around the ship.

    Structure:
    -a completely different main superstructure/deckhouse to 052C
    -change in bow hull structure/bulkheads to accommodate the new VLS and the new 130mm gun which replaces the old VLS and the old 100mm gun
    -change in aft hull structure at where the old YJ-62 AShM launchers once were, and replaced them with a VLS block which entered "down" through the hull that would have required substantial modification and organization of the decks and bulkheads below.
    -change of the entire aft hangar superstructure, not only changing the geometry of the hangar itself (now centreline instead of port), but also integrating the RHIB launch positions into the hangar superstructure to be more stealthy as well, compared to 052C
    -and other minor changes such as modifying the Type 517M radar's position, changing the position of the decoy rocket launchers, etc.

    Sensors and electronics:
    -the most obvious change is the upgrade from the Type 346 to much larger and flat Type 346A
    -integration of a new VDS in the aft hull
    -expected (but not yet confirmed) -- a new generation of combat management system and CIC compared to 052C [I can appreciate if you or others may dispute this one given the current lack of pictures inside the 052D, but I think this is a not unreasonable expectation. I'd be willing to elaborate on it further to defend this hypothesis if you demand it]

    Armament:
    -older, 48 cold launch VLS limited only to HHQ-9 LR SAM now replaced with 2 x 32 universal cold/hot launch capable VLS
    -2 x 4 YJ-62s removed
    -PJ-12 (type 730) CIWS aft replaced with HQ-10 SAM CIWS
    -100mm gun replaced with PJ-38 130mm gun


    So if I had to sum up the changes made between 052C and 052D, I think they have encompassed major structural changes in the bow of the ship, amidships, and the aft of the ship (aka the entire ship's length), and featured comprehensive upgrades in sensors, as well comprehensive upgrades in primary armament and secondary armament, and very likely combat management as well. In other words, I view the combined variety and extent of structural changes and the variety and extent upgrades in subsystems to be sufficient to confidently call it a new class.

    If 052C had only been upgraded with one of those things, such as new VLS, and no other major changes, or only new radar, and no other major changes, then IMO it would not warrant the designation for a new class.


    Now, I do not have any "firm" metrics to clearly delineate between what extent of changes constitutes an "upgraded variant" of an existing class, versus a "new class" altogether...

    But if I had to create a metric for the context of modern major surface combatants, I'd say something like, any 3 of the below must at least be present:
    -major variation in the ship's primary armament (usually VLS) in either quality (such as VLS type) or quantity (such as VLS number), with associated structural changes
    -major variation to the ship's multiple secondary weapons (such as CIWS or main gun), with associated structural changes
    -major variation in the ship's primary power plant [such as if a ship were upgraded from COGAG to IEPS], with associated structural changes
    -major variation in the ship's primary sensor suite (usually radar system), and associated structural changes
    -major variation across many of the ship's "secondary" sensor suites including sonar, ESM, secondary radars (I use "secondary" to illustrate the changes being less structurally impactful here, not to suggest that these sensors are not very important)
    -major variation across the ship's internal systems, such as
    -major variation in the ship's structure in a comprehensive way which is not covered by any of the above (such as in 052D's case, the new helicopter hangar structure and geometry which also integrates the RHIB davit to its structure)
     
    Jeff Head likes this.
  7. Jeff Head
    Offline

    Jeff Head General
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    24,073
    Likes Received:
    32,101
    Well, such terminology has not been well defined and I suspect that is intentional.

    Personally, I believe that a class change should necessarily involve:

    1) Either a new hull, or substantially changed hull structure, and,
    2) Significant (substantive) new capabilities.


    With the Flight II to Flight IIA, you were using the same hull and though the structural change was substantive, and though it did give a new capability in the form of housing two helos, it was not viewed enough (either individually or as a combination) to be a new class.

    IMHO, the same goes with the Flight III...but even more so. It is the same hull, but this time with even less structural changes. And the capabilities are not new, they are simply improved (in this case by quite a bit) when it comes to the radar and the power.

    It is easy to see why the Tico were a new class, even though they used the same hull as the Spruance. The structural changes were major, and the new capabilities were significant.

    My point is simply that if going from Flight II to Flight IIA was not a new class, Flight II to Flight III (by whatever measure) is also not a new class.
     
    Bernard and Bltizo like this.
  8. Jeff Head
    Offline

    Jeff Head General
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    24,073
    Likes Received:
    32,101
    Guys, let's not go into detail on the Type 052C and Type 052D. Mentioning it in passing in the discussion regarding the Flight IIA to Flight III Burke is fine...but if you want to go into rich detail...please put it on the Type 052C/D Thread.

    As it is, let's try to not beat this to death.

    It becomes a meaningless argument because the decision is already made...and we did not get a vote. It is going to be Flight III Burke...not a new class.

    DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MODERATION.
     
    Bernard likes this.
  9. Brumby
    Offline

    Brumby Major

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    3,148
    Likes Received:
    3,321
    Completely agree. It has never been my contention to argue otherwise. I was simply supporting the notion that Kwai made and that the changes from Flight IIA to Flight III are significant.
     
    Bernard and Jeff Head like this.
  10. Jeff Head
    Offline

    Jeff Head General
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    24,073
    Likes Received:
    32,101
    Yes, though the basic function and capabilities of the ship are the same, the upgrades to the radar and power are significant. They will be very much improved...but at the end of the day, that is what they will be...improved Burkes.

    My own personal hope is that the Flight IIIs can be a stop gap of say 8-12 vessels and that a new Admin and Congress will go ahead and develop a CG(X) on the Zumwalt hull with even more powerful radar...with even more power...and with more PVLS to set it up to be the true replacement for the Ticos.

    Then build 24 of those.

    Since the Zunmwalt production line is hot (and will remain so for the next few years) and since a lot of the development on the better radars has been done, and in fact will end up on the Ford class and therefore be being built for the next many years...the cost of doing this (using the Zumwalt hull and basic propulsion and layout) would be FAR less than developing a new design from scratch.

    But THAT discussion will have to wait for something like that to happen which will generate a new thread for the CG(X), or whatever it might be called.
     
    Bernard and Brumby like this.
Loading...

Share This Page