Shipbucket

Inevitably, I had to continue to revise my challenge entry after the submission deadline. So as to avoid another stupid-long post, I refer the reader to the initial submission for most discussion, and will only discuss revisions in this post.



First, the outright goofs. The AEM/S in the original submission just barely didn't fit on the pilothouse! I swear I measured, but I must have altered it at some point. This is a maddening error. I also failed at some point to move the beam flag lines forward when I added a center-section coffer dam. It just doesn't line up. Another maddening error.

Next, the improvements. As might be expected, I envisioned a Ticoization (really, a Burkeization) of the original drawing. I could not contain my megalomania, and the base drawing grew 14' (10,100 TFL) to accommodate 96 strike-length Mk 41 cells, to match Burke.

The satcom got kind of out of control on my submission, and after the challenge ended, it got worse before it got better. C'mon, folks, 13 domes altogether? I did some further reading and found a Virginia Tech thesis discussing a multi-band (SHF/EHF) satcom terminal dating to 1997, for a notional 2000 combatant. I had trouble determining if such a multi-band system was actually available by that date, but it is clearly reasonable enough for our purposes. This paper was concerned with 56"-diameter dishes, which just so happen to fit in my Hawklink domes. I also re-drew my UHF (OE-570-family, in this case) terminals. We now have four domes on the top of the AEM/S, two Hawklink (layout: yellow) and two SHF/EHF (layout: green/pink). Larger SHF/EHF terminals (at least as large as the 5' of WSC-6(V)9) are sponsoned forward of the pilothouse and on either beam. INMARSAT (purple) has been relocated, one forward and one aft. UHF (blue) is atop the pilothouse on either beam, and sponsoned from the aft uptake (for zenith coverage).

I was not totally satisfied by the torpedo and decoy launcher setup. The USN very much prefers to have access to the stern that does not pass through a hangar. As originally drawn, starboard torpedoes had to be loaded athwartships through hatches in this bow-to-stern access, which was unsatisfactory. Now, there is one triple launcher to starboard (on 02) and two to port (in the very front of the hangar). The fore-to-aft access, starboard of the hangar and to port of the UNREP bay, is uninterrupted.

Finally, design shortcomings I chose not to emphasize in my submission

I never loved the twinned Link 16/CEC and Combat DF arrangement in the second level of the AEM/S. Without resorting to planar arrays, I couldn't come up with any other suitable arrangement, and I worried that these would be too modern, too expensive, and too heavy (since the structure below had to be transparent for SPS-49). I reasoned that the arrays I used would not be too expensive to deploy in pairs, since neither is a precision component on a microwave lengthscale.

I don't love having three different power generator types. I accept that Zumwalt has three (MT30, SSGTG, and an emergency diesel plant).

I don't love my use of SLQ-32. I guess I'm okay with the "LAMPS III Block II interferometer array" higher up on the mast. Not perfect, but better than anything else in USN service at the time.

The pilothouse location sucks. Visibility would be terrible, probably as bad as Zumwalt, and recent Burke collisions really highlight that. Cameras are better than nothing, I guess. I couldn't come up with a better arrangement. At least we have real bridge wings.



For those who voted in the challenge, I would invite feedback on your reasoning.

.
.
.
.
.

SO WE GOTTA BURKEIFY IT

Hell no, I'm not drawing any more top views.





The obvious big change is that we have three 16' S-band AMDR (or some predecessor AESA). X-band phased arrays are enlarged (and there's a fixed one facing aft). We've replaced SLQ-32 with a more integrated arrangement of interferometers and phased-array jammers. The aft 57mm is replaced with a pair of 25mm Mark 38 (I don't love having three calibers of ammunition aboard, but Burkes and Ticos do). The other changes are hopefully self-explanatory. She did pick up another foot of draft (10,500 TFL).

Originally, I envisioned replacing the forward 57mm with a Mark 45, and trading the VGAS for 32 cells, but the stretch meant I could keep the entire forward section unchanged. Win/win.

.
.
.
.
.

SO WE GOTTA TICOFY IT



It's mostly the Burkeified version. VGAS is gone, replaced by 32 cells plus volume for an air warfare commander and his or her staff below decks. The aft trainable X-band radar is gone, replaced by a 7' dish for WSC-6. Another 7' dish is forward (I am not sure it would be happy with VGAS blast, another reason for getting rid of VGAS). A little odd to have a modern cruiser with no major-caliber gun at all, but you gotta do what you gotta do. We have surplus NGFS capability on the DD and DDG.