Arleigh Burke Flight III - 3D concept

[NepsterCZ]

Yeah, I understand that. The DDG 85 to DDG 106 don't even have the part of the superstructure that should house the forward CIWS. But, out of nowhere, from the DDG106 up, they again, added the superstructure part, but without the CIWS. So is the Phalanx CIWS so, let's say, cost ineffective that adding let's say 15 million to 1.8 billion ship, a less than 1/100th of the cost. And about 6 tons, a 1/1500th of the ship, not worth it? That's what I'm, not understanding.

Sad to hear about the trimaran design. I find them extremely interesting. You are right of course, the images come from DEAR FSC Concepts. So are there any speculations about what the new Future Surface Combatant could even look like? The DD(X) program had a finished "image" of how the ship should look about 10 years before it entered active service. The FSC is planned for "early 30s" and there is suppose to be to even the Ticonderoga class replacement program before that if I remember correctly. So I'm kinda skeptical about the timeframe, to be honest.

[acelanceloet]

We can see the work going into these, as one who has modelled warships in the past (and now still modelling and making construction plans for actual vessels)
Shipbucket drawings take a lot less time per drawing, although if I count research times some might actually come closer then you would think
No requirement of course, but it might be interesting to try out ideas with the shipbucket scale, because while drawing takes time, editing and trying things out is a lot easier then in a 3D model.

As for the CIWS. I am typing this from memory, so I am not 100% certain, but it should be about this: the USN considers ESSM as an anti missile weapon, similar to CIWS, or at least they did during the development phase. With the end of the cold war, the risk of missile spam attacks was a lot lower. So, some variants of the burke design even had no Phalanx at all! with the phalanx block 1B the phalanx got an anti-surface mode as well, which made her more of an multi purpose weapon. that is not unlikely to be the reason why there are still at least one on board.
The spaces underneath the phalanx positions are in use for non-CIWS equipment, and need more redesign to be removed then to keep in place. Additionally, if needed, you can just bolt a phalanx on top of them without the structure used on the build-with-phalanx positions.

[Mist]

Yeah, I understand that. The DDG 85 to DDG 106 don't even have the part of the superstructure that should house the forward CIWS. But, out of nowhere, from the DDG106 up, they again, added the superstructure part, but without the CIWS. So is the Phalanx CIWS so, let's say, cost ineffective that adding let's say 15 million to 1.8 billion ship, a less than 1/100th of the cost. And about 6 tons, a 1/1500th of the ship, not worth it? That's what I'm, not understanding.

The Burkes aren't getting any slimmer as they age, and as new equipment is fitted(especially high on the super structure) it gets to the point where something has to go to maintain margins, and if it's something that is no longer seen as absolutely mission critical it;s no big loss.

the Harpoon tubes have already gone with the FLight IIAs, and with them any serious Anti-ship capability outside of Standard missiles and the odd hellfire from the seahawk.
Though LRASM will address this deficiency somewhat.

[Thiel]

As for the CIWS. I am typing this from memory, so I am not 100% certain, but it should be about this: the USN considers ESSM as an anti missile weapon, similar to CIWS, or at least they did during the development phase.

They did. The program was called Basic Point Defence Missile System and then Improved Basic Point Defence Missile System once the NATO partners joined in

[NepsterCZ]

Okay, that explains it, thanks, guys. So they ship the new Burkes without, with the possibility of fast refit, in case of war, or something. Interesting.

@acelanceloet

Im not even surprised you spend hundreds of hours on research I did some for this project but compared to you, It seems like I'm just putting thing left and right

[Tobius]

apart from the fact that that fact (the hull damage to the DDG-51 class ships) happened years after the current version of US destroyers was released, so he could not have mentioned it?
The Tico also does not have a fuller hull as the Spruance? (it has exactly the same) and I also see no proof of this being an issue on the Spruance class? the forum you linked to actually has a quote from Stuart Slade mentioning exactly why the burke has this issue while earlier ships had not.

Nobody is perfect, and I accept that there might be errors in Friedman's works. I have however found nothing you mentioned of enough value that I ever doubted Friedman on those points. Also, as Erik stated, this is not just Friedman, but also Electronic Greyhounds which disagree with your statements.

Tobius, you do realise I am literally doing damage control? I do not want NepsterCZ, who is doing excellent and interesting work (or anybody else reading all this) to listen to your statements which are unproven at best but in my opinion even completely wrong in most cases. To stop filling this thread and my time with anymore of this, I will not reply to anything you say here from now on. I think the message is clear to all. Just my request for you:
PLEASE STOP SPREADING DISINFORMATION

Hmm. Here's an Arleigh bows on..

Here's a Spruance bows on with the added bonus of a Tico next to it.

As a matter of record, the Arleighs tend to be shorter, wider and ride deeper than the Spruances. They bulge more.

QED.

[iiradned]

Here's a Spruance bows on with the added bonus of a Tico next to it.

Those are in fact USS Spruance DD-963 and USS Ticonderoga CG-47.

[sebu]

First of all; Great work NepsterCZ! Really talent work; we should see more. Trimaran concept, I read? Go, go, go...

Second:

No requirement of course, but it might be interesting to try out ideas with the shipbucket scale, because while drawing takes time, editing and trying things out is a lot easier then in a 3D model.

No. I just do not understand this comment. And; it's not true... (as a user of AutoCAD and Revit)

[NepsterCZ]

First of all; Great work NepsterCZ! Really talent work; we should see more. Trimaran concept, I read? Go, go, go...

Second:

No requirement of course, but it might be interesting to try out ideas with the shipbucket scale, because while drawing takes time, editing and trying things out is a lot easier then in a 3D model.

No. I just do not understand this comment. And; it's not true... (as a user of AutoCAD and Revit)

Thanks! Glad you like it! The Trimaran concept is, let's say in its infancy



It does, have a certain, ehm, charm? Does it? And the hull wouldn't even need to be lengthened, so no re-framing! >:P + Now the Ospreys would definitely fit!

Honestly, I also didn't get the shipbucket scale. I mean, the shipbucket scale is all nice and all, but my models are 1:1 so idunno what that means. I just did what I do every time when I don't understand, I just smile and wave, smile and wave

[Lebroba]

Some cool work, I like the level of detail.