USN Burke Class - News, Reports, Data, etc.

Re: Construction orders in excess of 6.2 billion let for construction of nine more Bu

Jeff Head said:

This news was released in early June and really should be on this thread. This will get the Burkes up to 72 vessels (there are currently 62 vessels), and to the point that the Flight III Burke vessels will start building and replacing the Ticonderoga cruisers.

Right now there are 62 Burkes. This will bring it up to 72 Burkes. Then the Flight III Burkes will start building, replacing the Ticonderoga Cruisers.

Click to expand...

true.. over ten years a go a sailor I know well told me that the USN plan was to decommission all Spruance class DD..done. and all Ticos..and replace them with Arliegh Burkes...my son was that sailor.

Re: Construction orders in excess of 6.2 billion let for construction of nine more Bu

bd popeye said:

true.. over ten years a go a sailor I know well told me that the USN plan was to decommission all Spruance class DD..done. and all Ticos..and replace them with Arliegh Burkes...my son was that sailor.

Click to expand...

It is an oustanding design. Will be cutting edge for the next fifty years because it is so scalable, and so open to upgrade.

I used to be down on the decomissioning of the Spruances so fast...and then sinking them. Now that we have more than replaced them with new Burkes, and are still building more...I have revised my opinion. I'd far rather have all these new Burkes. They are more than the equal of the Spruance vessels, and we have a lot more of them.

Keep 'em coming. Your son was spot on!

Re: The Arliegh Burke Class Destroyers, longest running productrion run in US History

A complement

Re: The Arliegh Burke Class Destroyers, longest running productrion run in US History

A complement

Re: The Arliegh Burke Class Destroyers, longest running productrion run in US History

FORBIN said:

A complement

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Excellent backgrounder for congress.

My own opinion, which I have shared with my senator and with the US Naval Institute is the following:

It would be best to have a bridge to a future, more capable design. The bridge should be the Flight III Burke, but only perhaps 12 vessels.

While that is occurring in the 2017-2025 time frame, do all the studies and go with a more capable design which can not only carry the larger version of the AMDR radar envisioned for the CGx, but will also have the room to grow in the future.

1. That could be a lengthened, bigger Burke beyond the Flight III adding the up to 55 ft. the vessel is capable of. This would leverage the current huge capabilities we already have with the Burkes...but would also be limited over their 40 year life.

2. That could also be the airdefence centric version of the Zummwalt. The Zummwalt offers the best of both worlds. We already have the infrastructure and design in place to move forward quickly, and it is big enough to allow for all of the projected or envisioned growth over the next 40 years.

3. It could also be accomplished by a new design, which is what the CGx was going to be. It would be the most expensive and risky of these three, but could also provide the best possible solution out in the 30-40 year time frame.

My choice has always been for a bridge Flight III Burke followed by number 2 above. The Zummwalt would be a very good choice which leverages existing designs, less cost, and future capacity all into one package.

Now, there is also a 4th option which would be to continue the Flight III Burkes out into the more distant future and then use the LPD design as a basis for a radar ship with a much larger and more capable radar that fed the missile shooter Burkes, who would still have their own smaller AMDR. This has some good points. You would need fewer of them, I'd say one for each battle group and then enough for maintenance spares...so maybe 12 vessels. But I would not make them USNS and defenseless. Make them a USS Naval vessel and give them a couple of RAMs, a couple of Phalanx and then maybe two 8 cell Mk-41 VLS loaded up with quad packed ESSMs...all of that purely for self defense. Add a couple of Mk 38 Mod 2 25mm guns for close-in anti-boarding/small boat defense and you have another potentially very good solution.

That would still be my second choice to building 24 of option number 2 above.

Re: The Arliegh Burke Class Destroyers, longest running productrion run in US History

The specifications for the Burke Flight III destroyers , and what they will look like are now developing. What you get a picture of is not much change in the overall ship, excepting to accomodate the larger and heavier AMDR AEGIS system which will be a dual band radar and a scaled down version of the DBR that is now going on the Ford Class carriers. The AMDR has a 14 ft. APAR, which is too large to be accomodated on the Flight IIA Destroyers. They also are talking about the Rail Gun, which should be available in the 2020 time frame about the time the first Burke III is being completed. In that light they are designing a specirfic gun for the Burkes as well as a larger one for the Zumwalts.

Here's Lockheed Martin's latest concept art for the FLight IIIs:


I believe that the Rail Gun is a sure thing, and also believe a larger VLS load out as well as adding a RAM would be wise. These can be done with little additional weight, and we know that a Burke upgraded design can handle it, because the KDX-III Se Jong class that the ROKN is building does that and more (without the rail gun).

So, as is my inclination, I have created a modified version of the Lockheed Martin concept to include these things. This vessel would hit the water with the Rail Gun, an addition 16 Mk-41 VLS Cells, and a RAM launcher forward on the vessel where the 2nd CIWS used to be, and where the Se Jong mounts their RAM. Here it is:


I am forwarding this concept to my contacts in the US Naval Institute and within the US Naval resaerch community. Back in 2006 and 2007 I was recommending a Burke III long before the cancellation of the CGX, and believed what the Koreans were coming out with at the time, presented a good, slightly modified and larger hull design that could handle these things. I am glad to see them going with a Burke III, and believe we will see 12-24 of them built before the CGX ever comes into play.

Re: The Burke Flight III DDG, interim new AEGIS Cruiser Design for the US Navy

Jeff, You do your look great !

The AMDR has a 14 ft. APAR

Click to expand...

Their radar look 052D AESA radar.
For comparison what is the size of AN/SPY-1D 3D Radar ?

Ofc i prefer the second variant for replace number for number the 22 Tico, i think best a number of cell's more close thereof.

The first Flight III ship enter service in 2023, about. Her price 2.3 billion, AB IIA now 1.6.

Re: The Burke Flight III DDG, interim new AEGIS Cruiser Design for the US Navy

I'm just going to point out how much Burke Flight III's nominal radar sets will look like 052D with its 346A

It would be interesting to compare how large 346A is compared to the 14th foot AMDR.


By all accounts it sounds like Flight III burke will remain the same dimensions as Flight IIA, and be only 700 tons heavier. That's probably enough to justify the new AMDR and relevant new processing and power units, but probably not enough to mount a railgun in place of Mk-45, depending on how large a new railgun will be.
Furthermore, it sounds like the initial blocks of Flight III burke will hold the same number of VLS cells as the Flight IIA. They are designed to replace Ticonderoga CGs with 128 VLS, meaning they will be less heavily armed than the ships they replace!

This of course raises interesting questions as to just how permanent a solution Flight III burke will be. It sounds like the USN has no plans for a larger CGX in the forseeable future (i.e.: next few decades), but that of course means the USN may be seen as somewhat short changed for capability, because Flight III burkes will still be using the old Mk-41 VLS with a somewhat smaller radar than what the navy originally wanted, with few of the Zumwalt's pioneering technologies fitted onboard.
What may happen is that as the USN's oldest Burkes leave service, new production Flight III burkes will move to fill the vacuum (many years down the line), and by then the USN's finances may be stable enough to afford to design a real new generation CGX.


I wonder if Flight III burkes will be designated DDG or CG. If the former, then by all the time the Ticos are replaced, the USN may technically not have any "cruisers" left (even though all of the USN's burkes and three zumwalts are virtually cruisers in among themselves)

Re:Arliegh Burke Class DDGs News & Developments

Bltizo said:

By all accounts it sounds like Flight III burke will remain the same dimensions as Flight IIA, and be only 700 tons heavier. That's probably enough to justify the new AMDR and relevant new processing and power units, but probably not enough to mount a railgun in place of Mk-45, depending on how large a new railgun will be.

Furthermore, it sounds like the initial blocks of Flight III burke will hold the same number of VLS cells as the Flight IIA. They are designed to replace Ticonderoga CGs with 128 VLS, meaning they will be less heavily armed than the ships they replace!

Click to expand...

Well, we know a more capable Burke can be built. the Koreans have done it with the Se Jongs and it is a good design. The US worked closely with them on the design.

IMHO the US Navy should take that hull, and put the AMDR, a few more VLS cells, the RAM and a rail gun on it.

As to the existing Burke design and the AMDR and Rail Gun, I do not believe that the rail gun and its magazine will be too much heavier than the existing 127mm gun and its magazine. Power however may be an issue. Powering the AMDR and the Rail Gun may be a stretch, even with the newer, more powerful generators producing 12 Mw vs 9 Mw for the existing.

Will be interesting to see how it works out.

Re: Arliegh Burke Class DDGs News & Developments

World Maritime News said:

Huntington Ingalls Industries laid the keel for the future USS John Finn (DDG 113) during a ceremony at Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula, Miss., Nov. 4.

The keel of DDG 113 was authenticated as being “straight and truly laid” by Laura Stavridis – the ship’s sponsor and wife of retired Admiral James Stavridis -and Bob Merchant, Vice President, Surface Combatants and U.S. Coast Guard Programs at HII.

“DDG 113 is the first ship of the Arleigh Burke class destroyer program restart,” said Capt. Mark Vandroff, DDG 51 class program manager, Program Executive Office (PEO) Ships. “This keel laying represents the beginning of John Finn and continues the proud tradition of this highly successful shipbuilding program. I was especially honored to have Admiral and Mrs. Stavridis joining us here today. Admiral Stavridis, a former commanding officer of the first Ingalls DDG 51, USS Barry, knows how the hard work of Ingalls’ shipbuilders produces great warships.”

The DDG 51 class ship is a multi-mission, guided-missile destroyer designed to operate in multi-threat air, surface and sub-surface threat environments. The DDG 51 program continues to reinforce affordability and efficiency in its shipbuilding program with a commitment to deliver ships at the highest possible quality to the fleet.

John Finn is the 29th DDG 51 class destroyer to be constructed by Ingalls and is the first ship of the DDG 51 program restart. The Navy currently has 13 Arleigh Burke class destroyers under contract, including the recent Fiscal Year 2013 – 2017 multi-year procurement of nine ships awarded to HII and General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in June 2013.

John Finn is expected to deliver to the Navy in 2016.

Click to expand...

The contracts have already been let for all four of the Flight IIA Burke vessels in the Restart Progam. Two at Huntington Ingalls in Mississippi (113 and 114), and two at Bath Iron Works in Maine (115 and 116).

An option for a fifth vessel is part of that contract and it is expected that that vessel will be the 1st Flight III destroyer, funded in 2016. After that, current plans (which contracts have not been let yet) call for two more of those vessels in 2017 and two more in 2018. To be delivered in 2018 and 2019 respectfully.

That would mean a total of 40 Flight IIA vessels in service by 2019, and the first five Flight III Ticonderoga replacemens in place by 2019 too. Amazing stuff. At that point there will be 73 Burke Destroyers of one variety or another plowing the seas, with still more flight IIIs being built after that, seven or more.