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

Brumby · Dec 12, 2015

Bltizo said:
I also wouldn't call the Burke Flight III a "new ship" -- not in the same way that the Spruance to Tico was a new ship, IMO. It's a substantial upgrade, but it's overhauling existing systems with a new generation of similar systems, rather than installing a new type of subsystem to replace existing systems.

The meaning of what is a "new ship" is rather subjective. I disagree with your description of the Flight III design as merely overhauling existing systems. The program objectives of Flight III besides the incorporation of SPY-6 was the provision of sufficient growth margins to ensure a 40 year service life. As such, there are substantial changes (besides SPY-6) in cooling capacity; power generation and distribution; and design layout to facilitate growth. Specific improvements include :
(i) A 50 % improvement in cooling capacity in AC by incorporating advances in the magnetic bearings, motor control of the compressor as a result of the LPD-17 San Antonio LPD program;
(ii)A nine times increase in power generation by adopting the 4-megawatt generator first used in Zumwalt and the adoption of the electrical distribution system first used in LHA 6.
(iii)The hull form was changed in the stern to be wider to balance the redistribution of weight as a result of more top heavy set of arrays. The choice of wider stern was also to generate more volume to cater for future growth in service tons requirements.
(iv)Provision of BMD command facilities such as consoles and infrastructure to take advantage of the enhanced BMD capabilities of SPY-6. This is a non starter in earlier Flights
(v)Redesign in layout to facilitate access to combat system equipment for future hardware upgrade. Such hardware are typically embedded deep inside the hull for survivability but compressed technological cycle mandates easier future upgrade paths.

Blitzo · Dec 12, 2015

Brumby said:
The meaning of what is a "new ship" is rather subjective. I disagree with your description of the Flight III design as merely overhauling existing systems. The program objectives of Flight III besides the incorporation of SPY-6 was the provision of sufficient growth margins to ensure a 40 year service life. As such, there are substantial changes (besides SPY-6) in cooling capacity; power generation and distribution; and design layout to facilitate growth. Specific improvements include :
(i) A 50 % improvement in cooling capacity in AC by incorporating advances in the magnetic bearings, motor control of the compressor as a result of the LPD-17 San Antonio LPD program;
(ii)A nine times increase in power generation by adopting the 4-megawatt generator first used in Zumwalt and the adoption of the electrical distribution system first used in LHA 6.
(iii)The hull form was changed in the stern to be wider to balance the redistribution of weight as a result of more top heavy set of arrays. The choice of wider stern was also to generate more volume to cater for future growth in service tons requirements.
(iv)Provision of BMD command facilities such as consoles and infrastructure to take advantage of the enhanced BMD capabilities of SPY-6. This is a non starter in earlier Flights
(v)Redesign in layout to facilitate access to combat system equipment for future hardware upgrade. Such hardware are typically embedded deep inside the hull for survivability but compressed technological cycle mandates easier future upgrade paths.

I am quite aware of all the design improvements made between the Flight IIA and Flight III... and I believe the Flight III represents a very clear and impressive new variant from the Burke family.

However, I would also argue that the differences between the Flight III to Flight IIA are quite a bit less than say, the difference between Spruance class and Ticonderoga class (two separate classes of warship) or even the 052C class and 052D class (also generally considered as two classes of warship).

This isn't to say the new capabilities introduced on the Flight III are not very impressive, it's just that the new capabilities introduced are not (imho) enough to truly call it a "new class of warship" when one looks at the precedents and historical context for other examples of differing classes of warship based on a similar hull.

Brumby · Dec 12, 2015

Bltizo said:
However, I would also argue that the differences between the Flight III to Flight IIA are quite a bit less than say, the difference between Spruance class and Ticonderoga class (two separate classes of warship) or even the 052C class and 052D class (also generally considered as two classes of warship).

I suggest you actually define what you are possibly trying to convey because I am confused by your examples. Spruance is destroyer class and Tico is cruiser class. Clearly they are different classes. You then have 052C and 052D comparison as also different classes. Are you suggesting that 052C is frigate class and 052D is destroyer class? There is a difference between a new ship within a class as opposed to different classes. In other words, a sub class or in this case, a different flight.

Blitzo · Dec 12, 2015

Brumby said:
I suggest you actually define what you are possibly trying to convey because I am confused by your examples. Spruance is destroyer class and Tico is cruiser class. Clearly they are different classes. You then have 052C and 052D comparison as also different classes. Are you suggesting that 052C is frigate class and 052D is destroyer class? There is a difference between a new ship within a class as opposed to different classes. In other words, a sub class or in this case, a different flight.

By "class of warship" I am talking about the "name" of the class of warship (such as Ticonderoga class, Spruance class, Burke class, 052D class, 052C class, Nimitz class, Virginia class, Zumwalt class etc). Alternately, the "name class" of a warship can be considered as the "design class" of a warship -- i.e.: a group of ships with a similar/identical design.
I am not referring to "role" or "type" of the class of warship (such as cruiser, destroyer, frigate, nuclear powered carrier, SSN, etc), which refers to potentially multiple warships of multiple different "name classes" all of which have similar capabilities or are intended for similar roles.

In relation to the Burke Flight IIA to Burke Flight III, I am saying that the changes made between them does not (imho) arrant it to be called a new "name class" of warship, but rather it would best be called a subvariant (or flight) within the existing "name class" of warship relative to its Flight IIA predecessor.
I then use other examples of past/existing ship classes (name classes) which were substantially modified (despite having the same hull and still having similar subsystems, similar to the example of Flight IIA to III), and given a new name class... and use those examples as a means of saying why I think the Flight IIA to III upgrades does not warrant it to be called a new "name class" of warship.

The examples I listed were the upgrades given to the Spruance class's hull and subsystems to make it into the Ticonderoga class; and the upgrades given to the 052C class's subsystems to make it into the 052D class.
In the case of the Ticonderoga class, the upgrade from the Spruance class also caused it to be designated as a "cruiser" whereas the Spruance class was designated as a "destroyer"... however that is not relevant to our discussion because I am only using it in context about the "name class" and not "role/type class". I can understand how including the Spruance/Ticonderoga example could create confusion, however I only meant it in terms of "name class". The fact that the Ticonderoga class is considered a cruiser is immaterial to the point I'm trying to make.

[out of interest, the Ticonderoga class was originally going to still be designated a destroyer... before it was changed to cruiser]

Brumby · Dec 12, 2015

Bltizo said:
By "class of warship" I am talking about the "name" of the class of warship (such as Ticonderoga class, Spruance class, Burke class, 052D class, 052C class, Nimitz class, Virginia class, Zumwalt class etc).
I am not referring to "role" or "type" of the class of warship (such as cruiser, destroyer, frigate, nuclear powered carrier, SSN, etc).

In relation to the Burke Flight IIA to Burke Flight III, I am saying that the changes made between them does not (imho) arrant it to be called a new "name class" of warship, but rather it would best be called a subvariant (or flight) within the existing "name class" of warship relative to its Flight IIA predecessor.
I then use other examples of past/existing ship classes (name classes) which were substantially modified (despite having the same hull and still having similar subsystems, similar to the example of Flight IIA to III), and given a new name class... and use those examples as a means of saying why I think the Flight IIA to III upgrades does not warrant it to be called a new "name class" of warship.

The examples I listed were the upgrades given to the Spruance class's hull and subsystems to make it into the Ticonderoga class; and the upgrades given to the 052C class's subsystems to make it into the 052D class.
In the case of the Ticonderoga class, the upgrade from the Spruance class also caused it to be designated as a "cruiser" whereas the Spruance class was designated as a "destroyer"... however that is not relevant to our discussion because I am only using it in context about the "name class" and not "role/type class". I can understand how including the Spruance/Ticonderoga example could create confusion, however I only meant it in terms of "name class". The fact that the Ticonderoga class is considered a cruiser is immaterial to the point I'm trying to make.

[out of interest, the Ticonderoga class was originally going to still be designated a destroyer... before it was changed to cruiser]

ok. That is why it is designated as Flight III.

Blitzo · Dec 12, 2015

Brumby said:
ok. That is why it is designated as Flight III.

Yes.... and that was never a disagreement between us.

My original post #439 was in response to Kwaig's post #438 where he said "Like I said b4 the flt III are essentially almost a new class of ships."

Of course, I do clearly appreciate that he said the Flight III were "almost a new class of ships," and he was not claiming the Flight III were a new class of ships, however I still felt the need to contrast the relatively limited upgrades between Flight IIA and III compared with other examples (Spruance/Tico; 052C/052D) of existing ships which experienced more comprehensive upgrades and became clearly new classes of warship... in other words my post was to say that it's probably a stretch to call the Flight III "almost a new class" and that its modifications are (imho) sufficient to only call it a new flight or variant of an existing class and still very far from being a new class.

Sorry about getting into these nitty gritty details, but these nuances are the basis of why I made the original assertion in the first place.

kwaigonegin · Dec 13, 2015

Bltizo said:
By "class of warship" I am talking about the "name" of the class of warship (such as Ticonderoga class, Spruance class, Burke class, 052D class, 052C class, Nimitz class, Virginia class, Zumwalt class etc). Alternately, the "name class" of a warship can be considered as the "design class" of a warship -- i.e.: a group of ships with a similar/identical design.
I am not referring to "role" or "type" of the class of warship (such as cruiser, destroyer, frigate, nuclear powered carrier, SSN, etc), which refers to potentially multiple warships of multiple different "name classes" all of which have similar capabilities or are intended for similar roles.

In relation to the Burke Flight IIA to Burke Flight III, I am saying that the changes made between them does not (imho) arrant it to be called a new "name class" of warship, but rather it would best be called a subvariant (or flight) within the existing "name class" of warship relative to its Flight IIA predecessor.
I then use other examples of past/existing ship classes (name classes) which were substantially modified (despite having the same hull and still having similar subsystems, similar to the example of Flight IIA to III), and given a new name class... and use those examples as a means of saying why I think the Flight IIA to III upgrades does not warrant it to be called a new "name class" of warship.

The examples I listed were the upgrades given to the Spruance class's hull and subsystems to make it into the Ticonderoga class; and the upgrades given to the 052C class's subsystems to make it into the 052D class.
In the case of the Ticonderoga class, the upgrade from the Spruance class also caused it to be designated as a "cruiser" whereas the Spruance class was designated as a "destroyer"... however that is not relevant to our discussion because I am only using it in context about the "name class" and not "role/type class". I can understand how including the Spruance/Ticonderoga example could create confusion, however I only meant it in terms of "name class". The fact that the Ticonderoga class is considered a cruiser is immaterial to the point I'm trying to make.

[out of interest, the Ticonderoga class was originally going to still be designated a destroyer... before it was changed to cruiser]

Yes, obviously the fact that it's still called burke means on paper it's still the same class however I'm saying from an improvement standpoint it 'might' as well be a new class. That was what I was meaning in my initial post.
It's not different the the f18 hornet. The E/F variant is really a new airplane yet it's still call F18.
Hope that clears thing up abit.

Blitzo · Dec 13, 2015

kwaigonegin said:
Yes, obviously the fact that it's still called burke means on paper it's still the same class however I'm saying from an improvement standpoint it 'might' as well be a new class. That was what I was meaning in my initial post.
It's not different the the f18 hornet. The E/F variant is really a new airplane yet it's still call F18.
Hope that clears thing up abit.

Yes, I do understand what you mean, and I was disagreeing with it because I think the improvement from the Flight IIA to Flight III is not enough for it to "might as well" be a new class.

Using the Super Hornet analogy, IMO the upgrades between Flight IIA and Flight III is more akin to Super Hornet Block I to Block II, rather than F-18C/D to F-18E/F.

kwaigonegin · Dec 13, 2015

Bltizo said:
Yes, I do understand what you mean, and I was disagreeing with it because I think the improvement from the Flight IIA to Flight III is not enough for it to "might as well" be a new class.

Using the Super Hornet analogy, IMO the upgrades between Flight IIA and Flight III is more akin to Super Hornet Block I to Block II, rather than F-18C/D to F-18E/F.

We just have to agree to disagree

.
The improvements on flt III is HUGE much more so than from flt I to flt II to flt iia.
Read up on flt III Burkes. We're talking not just slapping spy6 arrays on .... we're talking actual changes to the bulkheads, changes to the hull, electrical systems etc. Displacement alone would be different as well.

Blitzo · Dec 13, 2015

kwaigonegin said:
We just have to agree to disagree .
The improvements on flt III is HUGE much more so than from flt I to flt II to flt iia.
Read up on flt III Burkes. We're talking not just slapping spy6 arrays on .... we're talking actual changes to the bulkheads, changes to the hull, electrical systems etc. Displacement alone would be different as well.

I am very aware of the changes of the Flight IIA to III, and while there are a number of minor structural and electrcical modifications (mostly to accommodate for the SPY-6), the changes between Flight IIA to III are far less than say the changes made between 052C to 052D, or the changes between Spruance and Tico, all of which were modifications which convincingly could allow their successor ships to be considered a new class.
Flight IIA to III is an upgrade which makes the Flight III a new variant of the Burke, but not enough for a new class, when we look at historical examples.

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

Brumby

Major

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

Brumby

Major

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

Brumby

Major

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

kwaigonegin

Colonel

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

kwaigonegin

Colonel

Blitzo

Lieutenant General