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

Jeff Head said:

I do not think that not being able to perform simultaneous normal AAW missions and BMD missions will result in them being subject to earlier obsolescence.

Click to expand...

I think the concern came out of the experience with the Kidd class when they were subject to earlier decommissioning because of the lack of pathway to upgrade the system. Similarly the 21 ships (MILSPEC) vessels might be subject to the same fate based on history.

Jeff Head said:

The US Navy, to my knowledge, has never planned to convert all AEGIS DDGs, either Blocks I, II, or IIa to do this.

Click to expand...

The article that I read talked about the Aegis modernisation program which began in 2007 was meant to upgrade all vessels to ACB 12 which in today's term is supposedly baseline 9. The meaning and technical capabilities might have changed over time.

Jeff Head said:

What the Burke III should have been:

​

Click to expand...

I wish they made the mast a little stealthier especially the flt III ships. Looks very busy for a modern ddg. I assume an increase in power output is essential for future improvement like rail guns, laser ciws and new generation arrays.

Brumby said:

I think the concern came out of the experience with the Kidd class when they were subject to earlier decommissioning because of the lack of pathway to upgrade the system. Similarly the 21 ships (MILSPEC) vessels might be subject to the same fate based on history.

Click to expand...

IMHO, the Spruance Class were all decommissioned and then most sunk far too soon. They had a lot of service life left in them, and had already had the VLS modernization. They were still very effective vessels for ASW and for Fire Support.

But they were not AEGIS and the decision was made to go all AEGIS.

IMHO, those vessels could have continued to have been upgraded with weapons and some sensors to allow them to perform those two roles very adequately. It was far more a political decision, and a very basic policy decision than it was technical or military IMHO.

But these AEGIS vessels have been built to be able to be upgraded. Not getting them to a BMD standard now, does not mean they cannot do so later, and...as I indicated...it will also not hinder them from performing the missions for which they were designed in the first place.

BMD does not have to be applied (nor IMHO was it intended to be applied) across the entire fleet of 62 existing vessels.

kwaigonegin said:

I wish they made the mast a little stealthier especially the flt III ships. Looks very busy for a modern ddg. I assume an increase in power output is essential for future improvement like rail guns, laser ciws and new generation arrays.

Click to expand...

Actually that design is cleaner than the existing Flight IIA Burkes.

It is basically a US Navy modification of the KDX-III AEGIS hull that was designed for the Koreans.

It gives them the single AGS, 128 VLS cells, RAM, and the AMDR. Would have been an excellent path...but apparently is not to be.

The Korean KDX-III vessels have the standard 127mm gun, 128 VLS cells, and the RAM.

Jeff Head said:

1) Three more in what will be known as the Flight IIA Restart Program.
2) Seven additional in what will be known as the Flight IIA Technology Insertion Program
4) Then twelve to twenty-four more in the Fllight III Program for the Ticonderoga Replacement Program

When all is said and done, there will be either 84 to 96 of these destroyers built. The largest (by far) indidivual major combatant construction program since World War II.

Click to expand...

Jeff,

If I read the CRS report dated 21/05/14 correctly, Flight III might potentially be delayed because the primary driver which is the AMDR is running behind schedule. I think with the lack of design maturity with AMDR, it presents too much of a technical and cost risk to the Flight III program. The lack of certainty on the capability of off board sensors continues to delay the final Flight III design and this in my view is compounded by the absence of a cruiser-destroyer strategic roadmap in which a strategic anchor is lacking for decision formulation. My personal read is the CG (X) program is dead and unlikely to see day light because it is just too expensive. An alternate and more viable roadmap in my view is a destroyer-adjunct radar ship force matrix. I suspect it will be more affordable and presents a more tailored force structure to future mission and perceived threat level.

Do you think there is a concerted effort to articulate a vision by the Navy or is it in the too hard basket?

Brumby

Brumby said:

Flight III might potentially be delayed because the primary driver which is the AMDR is running behind schedule. I think with the lack of design maturity with AMDR, it presents too much of a technical and cost risk to the Flight III program. The lack of certainty on the capability of off board sensors continues to delay the final Flight III design and this in my view is compounded by the absence of a cruiser-destroyer strategic roadmap in which a strategic anchor is lacking for decision formulation. My personal read is the CG (X) program is dead and unlikely to see day light because it is just too expensive. An alternate and more viable roadmap in my view is a destroyer-adjunct radar ship force matrix. I suspect it will be more affordable and presents a more tailored force structure to future mission and perceived threat level.

Click to expand...

I think the Flight III vessels are going to happen in some form or another.

They are really looking at an 11 ship Flight IIA continuation at this point, with the first of those having recently been laid down. Realistically, if they go ahead and do that, they will be another 6 years building those before they are ready to lay down the first Flight III IMHO. I think by that time the AMDR will be ready...if not before.

We will just have to wait and see. I do not think that the current AMDR set backs/delays are insurmountable, so I expect they will overcome those and move forward.

Would have been nice to have a CGX...but it at this point, it is not going to happen.

I personally would have liked, as I have said many times, to not give anything thing up with the Flight III vessels in terms of raw numbers to the Ticos. 128 cells would have been nice.

I still hold out hope, that in the right political and economic environment, that another three Zumwalts could be built. No one is talking about it...but if the economy started booming (and it could) that would open some doors.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

On June 21-25, the US Navy Seventh Fleet and the Navy Warfare Development Command (NWDC) tested how radar-absorbing, carbon-fiber clouds can prevent a missile from detecting and striking its target. Here is a picture of the two Burke AEGIS destroyers performing the test of the new radar absorbant cloud in the Pacific.


Supposedly, those clouds are made of very specific radar absorbant material which radar seekers will not be able to "see" through and retain a lock on the vessel.

Neat stuff.

Yeah another way to minimise the threat of sea skimming anti ship missiles which at this point and time is pretty high with all the proliferation

US BMD ships in 03/2014 :

I post here because almost all are Burke class and more easy for see that in the USA thread.

Total 30 :

Pacific : 16 : Yokosuka 5, P Harbor 5, S Diego 6
Atlantic 14 : Norfolk 10, Mayport 2, Rota 2

I add to the table below, Porter not listed based to Norfolk, seems be undergoing BMD upgrade go to Rota next year with Carney from Mayport him.

Planned 33 BMD ships for end 2014, then in more Porter and Mitsher, one other.
For 2019 initially planned 43 ships about 3 new by year.

One thing very important because Austin in particular don' t have Harpoon but SM-2MR block IIIB ( carry also by Ticonderoga and Burke ) have a anti-ship capability ofc he is definitely not sea-skiming but supersonic.

And i have a question i want know SM-2MR block IIIB range and warhead weight, i found between 118 to 167 km ? and 40 / 115 kg ? and also if he is used against ship what is the maximum range ?