Ticonderoga vs Arleigh Burke Flight II

LoBlo · 06-22-06, 07:21 PM

Here's a question...

What can a Tichonderoga do that a Arleigh Burke can't? With DDGs as advanced as the Arleigh Burke, is there any benefit to investing in large cruisers in the first place? Is there any real difference between a CG and a DG in terms of capability, besides a slightly higher weapons capacity?

Opinions?

Sea Demon · 06-22-06, 08:11 PM

Both ships are multi-mission capable with the abilities to conduct ASuW, ASW, Deep Strike Warfare (Land Attack missiles), Marine Amphibious support, Search and Rescue, AAW, Sea Control & Deterrence, etc. etc........all simultaneously.....

The only thing I believe Ticonderoga gives over Arleigh Burke is the SM-3 and the ability to conduct anti-ballistic missile warfare. I'm not sure if any Arleigh Burkes are equipped for this. And yes, the Tico carries much more in terms of missile magazine capacity.

Looking forward to any more thoughts.......................

shift-E · 06-22-06, 10:03 PM

Having 2 MK45 5" LWG Mounts on a CG (vs. 1 on a DDG) provides better SUW/NSFS capability both in a tactical (twice the ordnance on target) and logistically (more parts carried onboard).

Also, the CG has 4 MK99 directors (vs. 3 on a DDG), ostensibly providing superior AW capability. Of course, by the time you're illuminating even 3 air targets, you're in a world of hurt anyway... I can't see how being able to track a 4th helps much.

CGs' torpedo mags and launchers within the skin (versus having launchers on the DDG's aft missile deck) greatly reduce reload time -- esp in rough seas or in a CBR environment.

But speaking of CBR, DDGs' CPS (pressurized interior) beats the CG in that environment.

DDGs' design also lends them a significantly reduced radar cross section in comparison to the CG.

I'd still rather be stationed on a cruiser, though.

Kazuaki Shimazaki II · 06-23-06, 12:56 AM

Don't forget the heloes. With the Tico you can have a towed array and the two heloes. On a Flight I Burke you have the array but only a landing space for the helo (which means only a short-term stay). IIRC in Flight IIA you had the heloes but they used the array space for the helo recovering facilitiy so you lose the array.

06-23-06, 02:25 AM

CGs have better C3 facilities and greater durability on station. This lets them effectively direct the efforts of DGs in their area. Think of it as Light cruisers and destroyers in WW1. The destroyers had the capacity to deliver significant weaponry but needed a focal point for the commander to control their efforts.

LoBlo · 06-23-06, 12:24 PM

After looking at the stats of the latest version of the Arleight Burke (the Flight IIA)... its almost as large as the Ticondergo now (ABFlight IIA is 9200tons where the Tico is 9900 tons) and its now has the helo housing that it originally lacked.

So, actually, it seems like the USN is purposely upgraded the latest Arleigh Burkes to de facto cruiser status, really not missing from the mission capability now (they're even been given seal recovery ability and are planning to be able to field BMD systems). So while the original Burkes were destroyers (multimission but not omni-mission capability) the latest Burkes could probably be considered cruisers in the fact that they can pretty much perform all missions.

No wonder the USN stopped constructing Tico in the 1990's, the platforms were becoming redundant...:hmm:

LuftWolf · 06-23-06, 12:27 PM

One difference that no one has mentioned is that the DDG can deploy the ESSM from its VLS, which gives them the advantage of having more missiles on board and a missile that has a shorter effective minimum range than the SM-2.

Henson · 06-23-06, 02:16 PM

US Destroyers and Cruisers have become essentially the same type of ship since the 70's and 80's when the big nuclear cruisers were replaced by the Ticonderoga.

Riddle me this: Why are the USS Spruance (DD) and the USS Vicksburg (CG) built on the same basic hull design?

They are basically the same kind of ship. The US has decided to embrace medium size, long range, relatively fast multi-mission warships powered with gas-turbine engines and armed with cells of vertical-launch missiles. The distinctions between american destroyers and cruisers disappeared with the Virginia and Gearing classes.

LoBlo · 06-23-06, 02:33 PM

What I find interesting is that some ships in other Navy's, likethe HMS Tromp...
http://www.netherlands-embassy.org/tromp/faq.htm
http://www.netherlands-embassy.org/tromp/gallery.htm
... are still designated a "frigate" though at 6000tons displacement, integrated phased array radar with antiair defense system, 40+VLS cells, ASuW capability, multimission helo housing, and multitasking capability...they are far from "just a frigate."

It seems that no real classification scheme really holds true in any navy now-a-days.
What's also interesting is that the USNavy is still holding on to the "all in one" ship design philosophy, with every ship a total package capable of performing all functions. This has its advantages of course, but also has the disadvantage of every ship making every platform very very expensive and too costly to loose. It will be interesting to see how the LCS program integrates into such a traditional blue-water fleet and what capabilities will be deemed as necessary for the platform...

...:hmm:

LuftWolf · 06-24-06, 04:51 AM

Quote:

This has its advantages of course, but also has the disadvantage of every ship making every platform very very expensive and too costly to loose.

That's why we have ships like the FFG 7.

"CG 64 to FFG 17. John?"

"Yeah Cap?"

"I'm gonna need you boys to sprint out ahead about 20nm and check something out for me."

"Right on it Cap."

Cheers,
David

SeaQueen · 06-24-06, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoBlo

Here's a question...

What can a Tichonderoga do that a Arleigh Burke can't? With DDGs as advanced as the Arleigh Burke, is there any benefit to investing in large cruisers in the first place? Is there any real difference between a CG and a DG in terms of capability, besides a slightly higher weapons capacity?

Opinions?

There isn't really any difference. Cruisers these days tend to concentrate on AAW and work as "shotgun ships" while DDGs are usually a little less tied down to a larger surface combattant. In terms of what they're able to do, though, there's not really a huge a difference.

swimsalot · 06-24-06, 11:51 PM

For what it's worth, landing on a DDG, FFG, or CGN are all pretty much the same- ya pick an open spot and aim for it. All 3 have very limited room for "oops".
The only time I felt safe landing on a ship was a CVN, and even those were crowded sometimes!
Now, HIFR is another story altogether!!!!

06-22-06, 07:21 PM	#1
LoBlo Subsim Diehard Join Date: May 2006 Location: Texas! Posts: 971 Downloads: 78 Uploads: 3	Ticonderoga vs Arleigh Burke Flight II Here's a question... What can a Tichonderoga do that a Arleigh Burke can't? With DDGs as advanced as the Arleigh Burke, is there any benefit to investing in large cruisers in the first place? Is there any real difference between a CG and a DG in terms of capability, besides a slightly higher weapons capacity? Opinions? __________________ "Seek not to offend or annoy... only to speak the truth"-a wise man

06-22-06, 08:11 PM	#2
Sea Demon Ocean Warrior Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: USA Posts: 2,552 Downloads: 33 Uploads: 0	Both ships are multi-mission capable with the abilities to conduct ASuW, ASW, Deep Strike Warfare (Land Attack missiles), Marine Amphibious support, Search and Rescue, AAW, Sea Control & Deterrence, etc. etc........all simultaneously..... The only thing I believe Ticonderoga gives over Arleigh Burke is the SM-3 and the ability to conduct anti-ballistic missile warfare. I'm not sure if any Arleigh Burkes are equipped for this. And yes, the Tico carries much more in terms of missile magazine capacity. Looking forward to any more thoughts....................... Last edited by Sea Demon; 06-22-06 at 08:14 PM.

06-23-06, 12:24 PM	#6
LoBlo Subsim Diehard Join Date: May 2006 Location: Texas! Posts: 971 Downloads: 78 Uploads: 3	After looking at the stats of the latest version of the Arleight Burke (the Flight IIA)... its almost as large as the Ticondergo now (ABFlight IIA is 9200tons where the Tico is 9900 tons) and its now has the helo housing that it originally lacked. So, actually, it seems like the USN is purposely upgraded the latest Arleigh Burkes to de facto cruiser status, really not missing from the mission capability now (they're even been given seal recovery ability and are planning to be able to field BMD systems). So while the original Burkes were destroyers (multimission but not omni-mission capability) the latest Burkes could probably be considered cruisers in the fact that they can pretty much perform all missions. No wonder the USN stopped constructing Tico in the 1990's, the platforms were becoming redundant...:hmm: __________________ "Seek not to offend or annoy... only to speak the truth"-a wise man

06-23-06, 12:27 PM	#7
LuftWolf Ocean Warrior Join Date: May 2005 Location: Free New York Posts: 3,167 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	One difference that no one has mentioned is that the DDG can deploy the ESSM from its VLS, which gives them the advantage of having more missiles on board and a missile that has a shorter effective minimum range than the SM-2. __________________ LW

06-23-06, 02:33 PM	#9
LoBlo Subsim Diehard Join Date: May 2006 Location: Texas! Posts: 971 Downloads: 78 Uploads: 3	What I find interesting is that some ships in other Navy's, likethe HMS Tromp... http://www.netherlands-embassy.org/tromp/faq.htm http://www.netherlands-embassy.org/tromp/gallery.htm ... are still designated a "frigate" though at 6000tons displacement, integrated phased array radar with antiair defense system, 40+VLS cells, ASuW capability, multimission helo housing, and multitasking capability...they are far from "just a frigate." It seems that no real classification scheme really holds true in any navy now-a-days. What's also interesting is that the USNavy is still holding on to the "all in one" ship design philosophy, with every ship a total package capable of performing all functions. This has its advantages of course, but also has the disadvantage of every ship making every platform very very expensive and too costly to loose. It will be interesting to see how the LCS program integrates into such a traditional blue-water fleet and what capabilities will be deemed as necessary for the platform... ...:hmm: __________________ "Seek not to offend or annoy... only to speak the truth"-a wise man Last edited by LoBlo; 06-23-06 at 03:13 PM.

06-22-06, 10:03 PM	#3
shift-E Swabbie Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 14 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Having 2 MK45 5" LWG Mounts on a CG (vs. 1 on a DDG) provides better SUW/NSFS capability both in a tactical (twice the ordnance on target) and logistically (more parts carried onboard). Also, the CG has 4 MK99 directors (vs. 3 on a DDG), ostensibly providing superior AW capability. Of course, by the time you're illuminating even 3 air targets, you're in a world of hurt anyway... I can't see how being able to track a 4th helps much. CGs' torpedo mags and launchers within the skin (versus having launchers on the DDG's aft missile deck) greatly reduce reload time -- esp in rough seas or in a CBR environment. But speaking of CBR, DDGs' CPS (pressurized interior) beats the CG in that environment. DDGs' design also lends them a significantly reduced radar cross section in comparison to the CG. I'd still rather be stationed on a cruiser, though.

06-23-06, 12:56 AM	#4
Kazuaki Shimazaki II Ace of the Deep Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 1,140 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	Don't forget the heloes. With the Tico you can have a towed array and the two heloes. On a Flight I Burke you have the array but only a landing space for the helo (which means only a short-term stay). IIRC in Flight IIA you had the heloes but they used the array space for the helo recovering facilitiy so you lose the array.

06-23-06, 02:25 AM	#5
DannyJim Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	CGs have better C3 facilities and greater durability on station. This lets them effectively direct the efforts of DGs in their area. Think of it as Light cruisers and destroyers in WW1. The destroyers had the capacity to deliver significant weaponry but needed a focal point for the commander to control their efforts.

06-23-06, 02:16 PM	#8
Henson Planesman Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 185 Downloads: 13 Uploads: 0	US Destroyers and Cruisers have become essentially the same type of ship since the 70's and 80's when the big nuclear cruisers were replaced by the Ticonderoga. Riddle me this: Why are the USS Spruance (DD) and the USS Vicksburg (CG) built on the same basic hull design? They are basically the same kind of ship. The US has decided to embrace medium size, long range, relatively fast multi-mission warships powered with gas-turbine engines and armed with cells of vertical-launch missiles. The distinctions between american destroyers and cruisers disappeared with the Virginia and Gearing classes.

06-24-06, 11:51 PM	#12
swimsalot Helmsman Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Seattle, wa usa Posts: 102 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	For what it's worth, landing on a DDG, FFG, or CGN are all pretty much the same- ya pick an open spot and aim for it. All 3 have very limited room for "oops". The only time I felt safe landing on a ship was a CVN, and even those were crowded sometimes! Now, HIFR is another story altogether!!!!