Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!olivea!oliveb!veritas!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Random thoughts on Ships
Message-ID: <1991Mar29.032114.17253@amd.com>
Date: 27 Mar 91 16:16:20 GMT
References: <1991Mar27.051326.22591@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Lines: 50
Approved: military@amd.com



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