kinggodzilla87
New Member
look at the PICS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke_class_destroyer
CIWS was eliminated in Arleigh Burke class destroyers fitted with ESSM.can any one tell me Why the Flight IIA Burke from DDG 85 on has NO CIWS
look at the PICS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke_class_destroyer
There does seem to be some debate about the value of the Phalanx CIWS in vessels that have ESSM. I would prefer both as the Phalanx in its latest version can also deal with fast surface targets. So the issue could be one of cost, space, weight, or simply that the USN doesn’t believe that the CIWS is necessary as a back up to ESSM. Perhaps some of our USN members can shed more light on this.OOO
thanks
Anybody think thats kanda stupid
Not really, not every ship needs long range anti-ship missiles.OOO
thanks
Anybody think thats kanda stupid
What are you talking aboutNot really, not every ship needs long range anti-ship missiles.
The IIA's have a helo armed with Penguin ASM's for longer range work and SM II's, the 5" gun and crew served weapons for up close.
OOSorry, I was refering to the lack of Harpoon.
How long has Harpoon Block II been cleared for VLS launch? I wasn't aware that it had been.Boeing can build several dozen Harpoons a week if required, and the newly built (and purchased) Harpoons would be of Block II (or soon to be Block III), which are VLS launched, not launched like the older Block Is currently deployed on USN warships.
I think we have all agreed that Flight IIA Arleigh Burkes are not fitted with CIWS. As stated previously it seems the USN has decided not to fit the Phalanx CIWS in Burkes that are fitted with ESSM which the Flight IIA vessels have. There is a limit as to how much top weight a ship can carry.
Since 2003, there has never been a production run though. It has been rolled into the currently funded block 3 under development.How long has Harpoon Block II been cleared for VLS launch? I wasn't aware that it had been.
Thanks for that. The availability of VLS launched Harpoon will certainly add to the flexibility of ships fitted with the Mk41 system and the Burkes have a lot of VLS cells!Since 2003, there has never been a production run though. It has been rolled into the currently funded block 3 under development.
Harpoon "Block II" exists as an upgrade package for Block I. Seeker/software upgrade mostly, no VLS capability as the Block I missiles are used with it (afaik all upgraded missiles were Block IC). Upgrade kits were bought by Denmark, Australia, Pakistan and Japan.Since 2003, there has never been a production run though. It has been rolled into the currently funded block 3 under development.
As far as I know Block III has not yet been funded. To date Harpoon is not VLS but you would have to assume it is coming given DDG1000 will not use canisters.Since 2003, there has never been a production run though. It has been rolled into the currently funded block 3 under development.
What would be the weight of an extra 8 cell Mk41 VLS system containing 8 Harpoon compared with 8 in 2 quad mountings? I realise that as well as the weight the distribution and height of the mountings would be significant re stability. The Anzac mountings forward of the bridge appear make these ships appear 'bow heavy' in some photos.As far as I know Block III has not yet been funded. To date Harpoon is not VLS but you would have to assume it is coming given DDG1000 will not use canisters.
In my view VLS, when it gets into operation, would be very useful to the ANZAC as we could prepalce canisters Harpoon with VLS (in an extra Mk41 module) reuding the top weight issues and allow a more flexible laod out.
It isw off topic but the VLS cells extend down to the main deck but the canisters for harpoon ar located on 01 deck forward of the bridge about 2.4m above manin deck. The CoG of the cansiters wouel be higher thatn that as the whole mass is carried above 01 deck with the canisters elevated.What would be the weight of an extra 8 cell Mk41 VLS system containing 8 Harpoon compared with 8 in 2 quad mountings? I realise that as well as the weight the distribution and height of the mountings would be significant re stability. The Anzac mountings forward of the bridge appear make these ships appear 'bow heavy' in some photos.
Seasprite ...... I reckon this was a typo.case of the Anzacs, for example, once the Seahawk (ahem!)
Cheers
FY07 was first year for funding Harpoon Block III R&D, it is actually a stated item in the main budget. There is additional funding in the FY08 budget planned.As far as I know Block III has not yet been funded. To date Harpoon is not VLS but you would have to assume it is coming given DDG1000 will not use canisters.
In my view VLS, when it gets into operation, would be very useful to the ANZAC as we could prepalce canisters Harpoon with VLS (in an extra Mk41 module) reuding the top weight issues and allow a more flexible laod out.
One would think, but reality and potential are two different things. The Burkes capability may not be limited by its VLS cells, but it is limited by its technology. Specifically, depending upon which Flight of Burkes you are talking about determines which true capability the ship has in terms of weapon variety. Even for a VLS launched Harpoon, simply because it could be launched, the fire control software for the weapon doesn't exist as an integration into the AEGIS system at this time, so there would still be work to do.With the large number of cells in the Burkes the flexibility for weapon loadout would be enormous and would include combinations of SM-3, SM-2, quad packed ESSM, Tomahawk, Harpoon, ASROC and later the SM-6.