Question about Arleigh Burke class DDG

[Skorn]

I was browsing through the US Navy photo section and saw a very nice picture of the USS Pinckney DDG-91. While looking at the picture, I noticed that it doesn't have the CIWS mount before the bridge or before the aft VLS tubes. Just curious if anybody knows if they stopped including this system?

http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=31669
(Look at the high-res picture)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../ddg-54-01.jpg

[SmokinTep]

They did not install them on the flight II's. Supposidly no Harpoon either. Having second thoughts about retrofitting them back on. CWIS is a piece of junk to maintain, but works well when it works. This is from a friend of mine at work who works Combat Systems stuff.

[Kapitan]

they are stupid if they dont keep CIWS systems on them things, britian learnt the hard way about relying on missiles for close in support and look what happend in the falklands we lost ships simply because we didnt have goal keeper of phalanx systems if we had them then we may not have lost the sheffield

[tycho102]

Everything I know about the Arleigh Burke class I learned from Strike Fleet.

Everything I learned from Strike Fleet, I've forgotten. Except that on the Russian strike force scenario, it's best to group your entire fleet as closely as possible, so all the R2-D2's and AD missiles can get good trajectories on the incomming AS missiles. Afterwards, you launch a counter attack and use your longer ranged deck guns to drop the Kirov's, if they managed to survive all the ASM's.

Hope that helps. :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Bort]

The Evolved Sea Sparrow's that the Flight II's carry in VLS quadpacks are supposed to fill the role of the CIWS. Still, the empty pedestal in front of the structure does look odd. :hmm:

[The Bandit]

Supposedly the newer Burkes will eventually be refitted with the RIM-116 RAM SAM on the old Phalanx pedastals. While RAM does look pretty decent for a budget Point defence SAM (not too bad of a system, but lets not ignore the fact that it was made from the parts bin of other SAMs, namly the Sidewinder and Stinger, and AFAIK its deployment to mainline fighting ships like CVs, DDGs, and CGs has been slowed greatly, this may just be budgetary) Personally I think that the CIWS is the best bet for missile supression. Didn't they have somthing called the Mellenium gun under developement? I think it was supposed to be the next generation CIWS. As far as Harpoon capabuility goes for the Flight II Burkes, they don't have it but I think there are provisions for it to be mounted ontop of the hangar, but then again, this may provide blind spot for the radar. I would say within the next 8-15 years that the USA is going to come out with a new family of ASM. There are already feasabuility studies for what the Mk 41 VLS can hold, and while Harpoon may be an effective system, it is growing a bit long in the tooth, especially now that supersonic missiles are becoming trendy.

[Torpedo Fodder]

Personally I think that the CIWS is the best bet for missile supression. Didn't they have somthing called the Mellenium gun under developement?

It's still on, and it's supposed to be used on the DD(X). What makes this gun so special is the 152 sub-projectiles enclosed in it's 35mm shells, which greatly increase the chance of each shell scoring a hit. Apparently, it's effective range is 3.5km vs. aircraft and helicopters, and 1.5km against sea-skimming missiles. The Phalanx, by comparison doesn't have an effecive range greater than 1500m against any kind of airborne target; against sea skimmers it's well under a kilometer; at that range, debris from supersonic missiles would still hit the ship that shoots them down.

[Abraham]

That's why I'm proud that Holland develloped the 30mm. Goalkeeper system, wich is in my opinion clearly superior to the Phalanx. It's 20mm. Gatling gun has always been a problem child as faras maintenance was concerned.

[Kapitan]

That's why I'm proud that Holland develloped the 30mm. Goalkeeper system, wich is in my opinion clearly superior to the Phalanx. It's 20mm. Gatling gun has always been a problem child as faras maintenance was concerned.

Your not alone there even the americans think it is superior!

[Skorn]

I just think it's a bad idea to downgrade any system of a ship. No, they might not have had to use the CIWS yet, but it doesn't mean that it wouldn't save a ship if worst comes to worst. Just a bad idea to take weaponry off in my idea, especially if you don't replace it with something superior.

[Abraham]

Obviously they don't consider the CIWS a priority weapon for some of these destroyers (given their deployment?). The weapons might have been placed on more modern ships or might have (temporary?) beefed-up ships that are send into harms way.
It would be a piece of cake to reinstall the system.

[Etienne]

Originally Posted by Skorn

I just think it's a bad idea to downgrade any system of a ship. No, they might not have had to use the CIWS yet, but it doesn't mean that it wouldn't save a ship if worst comes to worst. Just a bad idea to take weaponry off in my idea, especially if you don't replace it with something superior.

Removing something you consider useless, or inefficient, frees up weight and space for something else (Or, worse comes to worst, it might just makes the ship handle better), and release maintenance effort to other equipment.

Ships can't carry the world and a half ; eventually they need to save on weight and power... Although the navy usually isn't that tight on those things :-D

[Bort]

According to the latest edition of USNI Guide to Ships and Aircraft of the US Fleet, the harpoons were removed from flight IIA Burkes because of weight issues, although the mountings have been retained, maybe the stretching of the DDG-51 design has strained its capacity? :hmm: