JA Boomer

I always wondered about this move. I have little doubt that the ESSM missile is a very effect air defense platform, and that it would have little trouble intercepting missiles that either got through the SM-2ER's or were fired in close proximity to the ship. The thing is, I don't think the ESSM is a close-in-weapons-system. It's fired from VLS tubes, so there is a certain arc it must take to reach its target, meaning there is a minimum distance a target can be away from the ship for the ESSM to engage it. Systems like the Phalanx and the RAM are point-and-shoot systems. They can fire at targets coming towards to ship even at very close ranges.

I have always thought it would be best to have a CIWS on any surface combatant, and thought the US Navy should have installed RAM's in place of the Phalanx systems in the newer ships to back-up the ESSM. I know this would be very redundant, but you can never be too careful. Some may say that if the ESSM can't intercept it, it's already too late, but would you rather a CIWS destroy an incoming missile 200 meters away or let it hit the ship?

Also, there is the secondary issue of anti-surface warfare. The Phalanx and RAM both have mods that allow for these systems to engage small surface targets (talking about nailing small boats in the littorals here). I believe both systems operate via infrared imaging and can also be manual controlled (at least in the Phalanx's case). This is also a significant capability that is lost without a CIWS.

Although I don't think the US Navy will be regretting its decision to remove the two CIWS from the newest Burke class Destroyers in favor of an ESSM last-ditch response weapon, I do think that it makes them slightly less capable. I for one would like to see a ship with ESSM for close-in air defense, two RAMs for CIWS, and a port and starboard 25mm Bushmaster mount (which in combination with the RAM launchers, would effectively deal with the surface threats in the littorals).

Although the Burkes look "cleaner" without the Phalanx's installed, I think the front looks a little empty now, with the raised portion of the superstructure just ahead of the bridge now being empty. I noticed on the KDX-III design (which is based on the Burke) they do indeed have a RAM launcher installed in this position. Maybe the US should consider making the last Flight of burkes with the raised superstructure removed, and install a 64 cell VLS instead of the current 32 cell. Yes, I realize that this would require vast amounts of work and changes to the design, and will never happen, it's all just my imagination and opinions coming out.