pms2@jaguar.uofs.edu (03/27/91)
From: pms2@jaguar.uofs.edu In reference to my first post (F-117's, B-2's....), I'd like to say thanks for helping to more fully inform an somewhat ignorant person (i.e., me). Now, down to the dirty work.... A few articles have been posted concerning converting aircraft carriers (spec. the Forrestals and Kitty Hawks) to nuclear. I tend to believe that this would be (a) prohibitively expensive, and (b) patently ignorant! Not to put eight good ships down, but the Forrestals will be some 40 years old and the Kitty Hawks approx. 30 this decade. Obviously, they have quite a few good years left in them; however, converting to nuclear power would probably cost as much as a new Nimitz - $4-5 billion each (not counting the number of nuke technicians needed to keep the plant up). Besides, DoD is spending money on SLEP's for all of 'em, and this takes 28-36 months itself. Just saw an ad in _USNI Proceedings_ saying that the Arleigh Burke was launched. Anyone know how many of these are going to be built? Also, did they retrofit the Aegis system onto these, or did they have to do a few mods from the Ticonderogas (i.e., is it the same, or is it different? Enquiring minds want to know.) I've also seen ads in _Proceedings_ by GE re: the Seawolf. Has anyone given consideration to giving it a stretch and making it a combination attack sub/SSBN? Ian Tyler/Taylor (can't remember which) in _WWIII: Rage of Battle_ (yeah, I read these things - sorry :-) suggests it, as does _Jane's_, though in a more low-key way. I'd think 8-10 Tridents would be good (a good replacement for the Ben Franklins (right class?), methinks.) One last question: anyone know of any company that makes 1/350 scale models of ships besides Tamiya? Is there a way to get product catalogs from any of the manufacturers, also (Testors/Italieri, Tamiya, etc.)? I'd appreciate hearing from anyone with such info (Scranton has lousy hobby shops!) Thanks a lot! -- Peter Stockschlaeder University of Scranton (PA) pms2@jaguar.uofs.edu
v059l49z@ubvmsa.cc.buffalo.edu (03/27/91)
From: v059l49z@ubvmsa.cc.buffalo.edu In article <1991Mar27.051326.22591@amd.com>, pms2@jaguar.uofs.edu writes... > Just saw an ad in _USNI Proceedings_ saying that the Arleigh Burke was >launched. Anyone know how many of these are going to be built? Also, did they >retrofit the Aegis system onto these, or did they have to do a few mods from >the Ticonderogas (i.e., is it the same, or is it different? Enquiring minds According to MODERN NAVAL COMBAT (and I believe JANE'S FIGHTING SHIPS) they are going to build 29 Burke's of the current design and then 31 of an improved design with a helicopter hanger replacing the pad the current design has. It uses the SPY-1D Aegis system. This had slightly reduced capability from the A/B versions of the Ticonderoga's. It also carries 90 missiles in VLS launchers compared to 122 in the Tico's. It wasn't a retrofit, it was part of the design. The radar panels are mounted facing the following way: \ / \ / \ / * - ship / \ / \ / \ On the Tico's, they face straight ahead/back and to the sides. Paul "Joe Friday" Stacy
swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) (03/27/91)
From: swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) > ... but the Forrestals will be some 40 years old and the Kitty Hawks > approx. 30 this decade. Obviously, they have quite a few good years > left in them... USS FORRESTAL was commissioned on 1 Oct 1955; she is now 36 years old. The FORRESTAL underwent the SLEP (Ship Life Extension Program) which would add another 15 years to FORRESTAL's life. USS KITTY HAWK was commissioned on 29 Apr 1961, so that makes her 30 years old. The KITTY HAWK is expected to complete her SLEP in February, 1991. > Just saw an ad in _USNI Proceedings_ saying that the Arleigh Burke was > launched. Anyone know how many of these are going to be built? Name Laid Down Launched Commissioned Status --------------------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------ DDG 51 ARLEIGH BURKE 6 Dec 1988 16 Sep 1989 Feb 1991 Bldg. DDG 52 JOHN BARRY 26 Feb 1990 Mar 1991 Sep 1991 Bldg. DDG 53 JOHN PAUL JONES 14 Aug 1990 Jul 1991 Feb 1993 Bldg. DDG 54 CURTIS WILBUR Feb 1991 Jan 1992 Jul 1993 Bldg. DDG 55 STOUT Jul 1991 Jul 1992 Oct 1993 Bldg. DDG 56 JOHN S McCAIN Aug 1991 Aug 1992 Jan 1994 Bldg. DDG 57 MITSCHER Jan 1992 Jan 1993 Apr 1994 Bldg. DDG 58 LABOON Jul 1992 Apr 1993 Jul 1994 Bldg. DDG 59-63 Authorized FY 1990 program DDG 64-68 Authorized FY 1991 program > Also, did they retrofit the Aegis system onto these, or did they have > to do a few mods from the Ticonderogas (i.e., is it the same, or is > it different? The TICONDEROGA class guided missile cruisers have Aegis Mk 7 multi-target tracking with Mk 99 MFCS which includes 4 Mk 80 illuminator directors. The ARLEIGH BURKE class guided missile destroyers have Aegis multi-target tracking with Mk 99 MFCS which includes 3 Mk 80 illuminators. Source: Jane's Fighting Ships 1990-91
deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman) (03/28/91)
From: deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman) In article <1991Mar27.051326.22591@amd.com> pms2@jaguar.uofs.edu writes: > > Just saw an ad in _USNI Proceedings_ saying that the Arleigh Burke was >launched. Anyone know how many of these are going to be built? Apparently, 8 keels have been laid for DDG-51 (ARLEIGH BURKE) class destroyers. Their names are, respectively, AB, BARRY, JOHN PAUL JONES, CURTIS WILBUR, STOUT, JOHN S. McCAIN, MITSCHER, and LABOON. >Also, did they >retrofit the Aegis system onto these, or did they have to do a few mods from >the Ticonderogas (i.e., is it the same, or is it different? Enquiring minds >want to know.) Not sure, though the configuration is different than the SPY-1 aboard the TICONDEROGAs (i.e., instead of four orthogonal phased arrays which are parallel or perpendicular to the midline, the ARLEIGH BURKE's are rotated 45 degrees). Also, they look smaller. Five'll get you ten that the guys back east will call it a SPY-2... :-) > I've also seen ads in _Proceedings_ by GE re: the Seawolf. Has anyone >given consideration to giving it a stretch and making it a combination attack >sub/SSBN? The problem with this is getting it by the Soviets. Building a new SSBN would drive the Kremlin apeshit -- especially one with an ongoing procurement cycle like the SEAWOLF. Besides, such an action would be anathema to the mission of Submariners. Attack boats have a particular tasking, while the boomers have an entirely different one. What you'd end up with is something which can do everything poorly instead of a boat which can do one mission exceedingly well (sound familiar?). Finally, the SEAWOLF's already expensive enough without adding "extras," and redesigning what we've got. At a recent meeting of the Naval Submarine League, when the SEAWOLF's two-billion-dollar- plus price tag was mentioned, the attendees (comprised mostly of Submariners of yore -- WWII, Korea, etc.) collectively gasped.... >I'd think 8-10 Tridents would be good (a good >replacement for the Ben Franklins (right class?), methinks.) Then you'd need twice as many, since the LAFAYETTEs (SSBN 616 class) and the BENJAMIN FRANKLINS (SSBN 640 class) carry 16 or more missiles each. Rather than compromise the security of our SSBN force, it would be best to leave the attack boats (and future attack boats) alone -- they'll have a formidable task, especially once the STURGEONs are retired. -shane
DWN102@psuvm.psu.edu (03/28/91)
From: DWN102@psuvm.psu.edu In article <1991Mar27.051326.22591@amd.com>, pms2@jaguar.uofs.edu says: > A few articles have been posted concerning converting aircraft carriers >(spec. the Forrestals and Kitty Hawks) to nuclear. I tend to believe that this >would be (a) prohibitively expensive, and (b) patently ignorant! Correct, it would make a lot more sense to build something new and get 50 years than to retrofit and get 15 years. > Just saw an ad in _USNI Proceedings_ saying that the Arleigh Burke was >launched. Anyone know how many of these are going to be built? Also, did they >retrofit the Aegis system onto these, or did they have to do a few mods from >the Ticonderogas (i.e., is it the same, or is it different? Enquiring minds The last I heard was 29 total, however this is due to change with the year- ly budget nightmare in Congress. The ships are fitted with an Aegis variant, the SPY-1D, which I believe has a faster processor on it. > I've also seen ads in _Proceedings_ by GE re: the Seawolf. Has anyone >given consideration to giving it a stretch and making it a combination attack >sub/SSBN? Why?, the Ohio and Seawolf are two completely different submarines. First of all, I don't think you could fit a Trident vertically into a Seawolf. Sec- ondly, one of the reasons for the Seawolf was to have room for additional arma- ments (Tomahawks, Harpoons, Mk 48s). Putting a few Tridents on would get rid of that extra room. I also believe that we are running up to our limit in the # of SLBMs allowed by SALT II. I believe that is why the Ohio class is winding down in production. Once the Sturgeon (SSN-637) class begins to retire in the next several years, we will be left with a shortage of SSNs. I suppose I could ramble on for a couple more paragraphs, but I hope you see the point. Simply put, ships do best the job they were designed for. Putting Tridents into a Seawolf would be like converting an Ohio to a SSN. An 18,700 ton SSN, imagine that! I hope that this has been some help. [ Also, Boomers and Hunters have very different missions - Boomers are supposed to hide and keep quiet, Hunters are more aggressive. --CDR] David Bancroft dwn102@psuvm.psu.edu Senior - Electrical Engineering (soon to be working on BSY-2. Cool!)
alfalfa@milton.u.washington.edu (03/29/91)
From: alfalfa@milton.u.washington.edu pms2@jaguar.uofs.edu writes: > Just saw an ad in _USNI Proceedings_ saying that the Arleigh Burke was >launched. Anyone know how many of these are going to be built? Also, did they >retrofit the Aegis system onto these, or did they have to do a few mods from >the Ticonderogas from what I have seen, the version of the Aegis system uses the SPY-1D radar, which has been upgraded from the original version in several key ways to make it easier to fit onto smaller ships...I saw something like 30-35 will be built before the end of the century...BTW, it is the first all steel superstructure ship to be built by the Navy in a long time, and is probably what we could call 1st generation Stealth ship. It's sides are sloped, there are IR suppression devices on the exhaust stacks, and there is a minimum of equipment on the decks and hull. It is a very clean design... -alfalfa Corey Lawson, UW alfalfa@milton.u.washington.edu