• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Arleigh Burke Class Concepts

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
199
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
The Arleigh Burke-class (DDG-51) guided missile destroyer was known as the DDX program from 1978-79 and the DDGX program from 1979-1980. The DDX program should not be confused with the DD(X) program building the Zumwalt-class guided missile destroyer.

Line drawing of an early DDGX design proposal Proceedings magazine January 1982.
 

Attachments

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
199
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Re: Arleigh Burke Class Concepts

An artist's conception of the Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer (DDG-51).

Stern aspect of the Arleigh Burke. In this earlier configuration the single five-inch gun is shown aft with two Gatling guns provided. Subsequently, the five-inch gun replaced the forward Gatling gun.
 

Attachments

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
199
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
The attached paper contains an interesting history of the DG-AEGIS, DDX, and DDGX designs. Unfortunately, it does not contain artwork or models of the design concepts.

Revisiting DDGX / DDG-51 Concept Exploration by Justin Stepanchick and Dr. Alan Brown, Department of Aerospace and Ocean Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, March 13, 2006.
http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~brown/VTShipDesign/DesignforAffordability/9_ASNEDay2006DDG51Paper.pdf
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
199
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
An artist's concept of the Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer (DDG-51) from DefenseImagery.mil.

Description:
Artist's concept, by Vincent Piecyk, of an experimental guided missile destroyer planned for delivery to the Navy in 1989. Piecyk equips his destroyer with an AGM-84A Harpoon missile, a RIM-67 Standard-MR/SM2 missile, a 5-inch .54-caliber gun and a Phalanx 20mm close-in weapon system (CIWS). In addition, the 1989 destroyer will be equipped with YBGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles, advanced lightweight torpedoes and a high-quality anti-air warfare (AAW) system.
URL: http://www.defenseimagery.mil/imagery.html#a=search&s=Artist's%20concept&p=15&guid=ae70ac12c34dc698a6081f51ce7b6d653cfe0d94
 

Attachments

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
199
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Artist's sketch of DDGX concept from 1981.

Source:
Polmar, Norman. Naval Institute Guide to Ships and Aircraft of the US Fleet, Twelfth Edition Naval Institute Press 1981.
http://www.phpbbplanet.com/warshipprojects/viewtopic.php?t=2605&mforum=warshipprojects
 

Attachments

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
199
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
DDG 51 Flight III Design Development white paper from 1989 via MihoshiK at NavWeapons.com:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=4FCDZBMD
 

blackstar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,683
Reaction score
12
Somewhere, buried in my files, I have an article from a naval engineering journal about several mid-1990s design studies for cheaper versions of the Burkes. It showed different weapons loadouts, one set of VLS cells vs. two, etc.

I'll have to go looking for it. However, I vaguely remember thinking that this was a heavily loaded study that was intended to prove that the current Burkes were the best, and it simply wasn't possible to build something cheaper that had any capability at all. Seemed rather disingenuous.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
199
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
blackstar said:
Somewhere, buried in my files, I have an article from a naval engineering journal about several mid-1990s design studies for cheaper versions of the Burkes. It showed different weapons loadouts, one set of VLS cells vs. two, etc.

I'll have to go looking for it. However, I vaguely remember thinking that this was a heavily loaded study that was intended to prove that the current Burkes were the best, and it simply wasn't possible to build something cheaper that had any capability at all. Seemed rather disingenuous.
Would be interested in seeing those, blackstar.
 

Brickmuppet

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
159
Reaction score
1
Website
brickmuppet.mee.nu
Several of those alternate 'Burkes are shown in the second edition of Friedman's US Destroyers: an illustrated design history,
There were a range looked at going from a very truncated version with no aegis and only 8 VLS cells all the way up to the Flight three. Consideration seems to have been given to building two versions, one high end and one of minimal capability.. The designers settled on the intermediate solution which became the current Flight 2a.

Given the current LCS issues I found the low end variant interesting. It had half a 'Burke power plant resulting in only one funnel and 27 knots. It had only 8-16 cells forward with no aegis. On the other hand it had a large free deck aft for helicopter operation and retained the 5 inch gun. This razee version of the 'Burke would have retained commonality of mechanical parts while giving the fleet a cheap platform for low intensity missions and possibly a helicopter platform and VDS tug in a hot war. it looks to be cheaper than LCS and yet superior in every aspect save speed.
 

blackstar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,683
Reaction score
12
I'll see if I can find it.

I don't remember any high-end Burkes in the study. They all seemed like efforts to reduce costs and I got the impression that they just weren't trying hard enough. I thought that the quickest way to reduce costs would be to simply eliminate one set of VLS, but keeping the internal space if they wanted to upgrade at some point in the future (sort of like the step that the Navy took with the Spruances, when they eventually added VLS). But some of the options, like eliminating engines, seemed like they would create ships that were simply unacceptable.
 

Brickmuppet

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
159
Reaction score
1
Website
brickmuppet.mee.nu
The VLS is not an expensive piece of kit (comparatively speaking). The big sources of cost are the electronics and to a lesser extent the missiles themselves. If one is going to have AEGIS the system must be paid for and at that point cutting missiles is counterproductive as it reduces the number of shots one can take with the expensive, relatively fixed cost system.


The very low end vessels on the other hand, while about as big as the normal destroyer, would have cost, IIRC, one fith to one third as much as the production destroyer and had extra weight, moment and room for "stuff". Stuff might be the sorts of things the LCS is supposed to carry, with the addition of a few VLS tubes for ESSM and an actual gun. The logistical and training advantages of using the same hull and common machinery parts are compelling, even though the initial cost of the ship would likely be slightly higher than a smaller frigate built to the same (on paper) capability. A smaller vessel would also not keep the sea as well.

The fear of course, particularly in the era of the "peace dividend", was that by virtue of being the same size as a full fledged 'Burke, these useful, but decidedly second line vessels, would give disingenuous congress critters a way to gut the navy's capability while pointing to the number of destroyer sized hulls.
 

blackstar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,683
Reaction score
12
Brickmuppet said:
Several of those alternate 'Burkes are shown in the second edition of Friedman's US Destroyers: an illustrated design history,
There were a range looked at going from a very truncated version with no aegis and only 8 VLS cells all the way up to the Flight three. Consideration seems to have been given to building two versions, one high end and one of minimal capability.. The designers settled on the intermediate solution which became the current Flight 2a.
Based on your tip, I looked in Friedman's book and I think you're referring to what I was thinking about. I believe that this was part of the 1993 DDV (for "DD Variants") study. Based upon that, I've started a search and I may find the article soon.
 

blackstar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,683
Reaction score
12
Brickmuppet said:
The VLS is not an expensive piece of kit (comparatively speaking). The big sources of cost are the electronics and to a lesser extent the missiles themselves. If one is going to have AEGIS the system must be paid for and at that point cutting missiles is counterproductive as it reduces the number of shots one can take with the expensive, relatively fixed cost system.
Agreed. Generally speaking, for warships the pecking order is:

Electronics/radars--most expensive
Weapons/propulsion--moderately expensive
Structure--cheap

So if you really want to save costs, you have to cut at the top and eliminate the electronics, computers and radars.

Until I find and reread the article I mentioned, I shouldn't comment too much. But I do remember thinking that the options they were presenting did not look all that realistic. It seemed to me like they were trying to justify keeping the existing expensive Burke by demonstrating that all the other options were horrible. Government agencies do that all the time.
 

blackstar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,683
Reaction score
12
Here you go. This is from the DDV study in the early 1990s.
 

Attachments

Matt R.

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
80
Reaction score
1
Thanks for the very interesting article.
On page 43 of this article (first sentence of the paragraph on the 8-inch gun addition), it says : "The impact of deleting the 5"/54 and substituting an 8"/55 gun is shown in Figure 9".
Yet, unless I missed something, the aforementioned Figure 9 is neither in the pdf, no in the images you posted earlier.
Would it be possible for you to add this figure ?
Thanks in advance.
 

M. A. Rozon

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Messages
73
Reaction score
0
Thanks in advance! I would ike to get that little tidbit as well! :eek: :)
 

blackstar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,683
Reaction score
12
Here is the last page, with figure 9. I'll convert to a jpg later.

Looking at this, I'm not sure that it is the last page of the article. I'll have to double-check.
 

Attachments

Matt R.

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
80
Reaction score
1
blackstar said:
Here is the last page, with figure 9. I'll convert to a jpg later.

Looking at this, I'm not sure that it is the last page of the article. I'll have to double-check.
Thanks a lot !!! :)
 

TimothyC

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
14
Reaction score
2
Is there any chance you could please post the rest of the article?
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
139
The last PDF we have is of page 45. But it sure looks like that article should continue on page 46, if not further.
 

blackstar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,683
Reaction score
12
TomS said:
The last PDF we have is of page 45. But it sure looks like that article should continue on page 46, if not further.
That's all I have. Please feel free to locate a copy, scan it, and post it here. We would all appreciate it. Thanks.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
139
Sorry, didn't mean to sound critical. If I can find some time, I'll try to get over to the Navy Yard library and see if they have that issue. Probably not until summer, though.

Turns out that you can get the article online, for a price. It does up to page 48 of the printed volume, so there are a few pages missing.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nej.1994.106.issue-5/issuetoc
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,938
Reaction score
186
Shipbuilders designing upgraded destroyer as Navy eyes schedule risk

April 04, 2016

Shipbuilders on the Navy's Arleigh-Burke class destroyer program are in the midst of drawing up the Flight III upgrade centered around the installation of a powerful new radar, with final design parameters on the new Raytheon-made sensor due in the coming weeks, according to the program manager.

Bath Iron Works and Ingalls Shipbuilding, respectively the two prime contractors on the DDG-51 Arleigh-Burke program, are in the "detail design" phase of the Flight III upgrade, according to Capt. Mark Vandroff, DDG-51 program manager. He said the efforts are "on track and on budget," with Flight III design expected to be finalized by the fall of 2017.

"We've got some bigger efforts coming up because final design information from things like the radar and some of the other changes are being delivered just in the next few weeks," Vandroff said in a March 29 interview at the Washington Navy Yard. "That will be another input of information to the shipbuilders for them to do their design."

The Navy has designated the additional DDG-51 funded by lawmakers in fiscal year 2016 as the first ship to be built in the Flight III configuration, according to a March 30 Naval Sea Systems Command press release. Congress fully funded the Navy's request for two DDG-51 destroyers in FY-16 and added $1 billion in incremental funding authority for a third ship.

But the Navy still needs to determine how to put the additional destroyer on contract, as the service is funding two DDG-51s per year through a multiyear procurement contract put in place for FY-13 through FY-17. The service also needs another $433 million to fully fund the extra destroyer. Officials included a request for the remainder of the funding on the Navy's FY-17 unfunded priorities list

Vandroff said he's provided the Navy's acquisition directorate with options on how the extra DDG-51 could be put on contract. The Navy and Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall will make the final call on awarding the additional ship.

"They gave an interesting question for the fiscal lawyers to think about," Vandroff said of the partially funded ship added by lawmakers. "And they are still thinking about it, so I'm waiting for a policy decision on that as to the exact nature as to what our authorities actually are in spending the money that was appropriated."

However it is awarded, the first newly designed destroyer is expected to reach initial operational capability in 2023. The biggest risk, Vandroff said, is remaining on schedule, as several key systems for the Flight III ship are being designed at the same time.

"Right now, I've got everything on schedule, but I've got a lot of different things to keep on schedule," Vandroff said.

The Flight III design is centered around the incorporation of a next-generation SPY-6 radar, also referred to as the Air and Missile Defense Radar, which will replace the Flight IIA design's AN/SPY-1D radar. A prototype array of the radar will be tested at the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Hawaii this summer, with the first full, ship-set radar expected to begin production in 2017, according to Vandroff. The SPY-6 is being developed by Raytheon.

The more powerful SPY-6 requires corresponding upgrades to the DDG-51's power and cooling systems. The Flight III design will include a high-voltage generator, which is a modified version of the generator installed on the Zumwalt DDG-1000 destroyers, according to Vandroff. He said the changes to the generator are modest upgrades to make it more fuel efficient. The generator has cleared its critical design review and is expected to begin production next month, with the first set slated for delivery in 2017, Vandroff added.

The Flight III additionally requires new power conversion modules to take power from the generator and feed it into the SPY-6 radar. The critical design review on the new modules was recently completed, Vandroff said, and the units are now in production.

The new design also requires a better cooling plant. Vandroff said the new system will essentially be the same as the old AC plant, but with an upgraded compressor to make it more efficient, therefore allowing for more cooling. The first new AC unit is undergoing qualification now, he said, with production expected to start later this year.

While the SPY-6 will provide the Flight III with a powerful S-band radar, the Navy is also incorporating the X-band, SPQ-9B radar into the new design for horizon search capability. The SPQ-9B is operational on many existing Navy platforms, including aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships.

Rather than waiting to incorporate the SPQ-9B in only Flight III designs, Vandroff said the Navy will install the radar on DDG-119, a Flight IIA ship, and all follow-on destroyers to reduce risk in Flight III integration. DDG-119 is in the early stages of construction at Ingalls Shipbuilding and will have its keel laid this May, according to Vandroff.

While the Flight III upgrade is still being designed, the first ships under the DDG-51 "re-start" program are set to begin delivering over the next year. The Navy had originally planned to replace the Arleigh-Burke class with the Zumwalt destroyers, but decided in 2008 to truncate the DDG-1000 purchase to just three ships and re-initiate DDG-51 production.

The first of the re-start ships, the John Finn (DDG-113) built by Ingalls, is in the middle of combat systems testing, Vandroff said, with the destroyer expected to deliver in October. The Ralph Johnson (DDG-114), another Ingalls production, is expected to deliver next April, according to Vandroff.

Bath Iron Works, meanwhile, is facing pressure to keep the three-ship DDG-1000 program on track, meaning delivery dates for the DDG-51 destroyers under production will likely slip, Vandroff said. The Rafael Peralta (DDG-115) is slated to deliver this December, but Vandroff said he would not be surprised to see "one to two months" slippage of that date. The Thomas Hudner (DDG-116) currently under construction at Bath will deliver approximately one year after the Peralta, according to Vandroff.

Furthermore, the DDG-51 program could be a topic for discussion on Capitol Hill this week. The Senate Armed Services seapower subcommittee is slated to convene on April 6 to receive testimony on the Navy's shipbuilding programs
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
671
Reaction score
125
So.... returining to the cruiser sister of the Zumwalts, the CGX/CGNX?
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
139
So.... returining to the cruiser sister of the Zumwalts, the CGX/CGNX?
Unfortunately, the Navy cannot seem to admit that they need something like that, so we're likely going to end up with an increasingly cramped Flight IIIA or Flight IV Burke instead.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,008
Reaction score
198
At the very least they should be reviewing the old CGBL concept, rather than pour yet more increasingly scare resources straight down the drain. :mad:
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,938
Reaction score
186
Someone here who understands naval architecture and warfare why can’t the US figure out “here’s what we need and here’s how we’ll build it”
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,947
Reaction score
30
Someone here who understands naval architecture and warfare why can’t the US figure out “here’s what we need and here’s how we’ll build it”
I think it is a battle between "what we need", and the sticker shock that is likely to come closely coupled with the budget uncertainty in the medium term especially when the Navy is executing on the Columbia class, FFG(X) and has yet to put the first Flight III into the water or get the Ford class underway on her first deployment. I'm not even sure the Navy knows how much it is willing to pay for the LSC over and above what it expects to pay for the Flight III given cost uncertainties with the programs mentioned earlier. If they have a good idea about how much ship they can afford then they can begin working on setting something up. So far, all they have shared publicly about it has been that they need a "Big radar", and "lots of large dia cells for future weapons". There are likely numerous other cost drivers (like speed, stealth, electrical needs etc. etc.) that they have yet to figure out so less a real urgent need, I doubt they will proceed at a fast pace..
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
139
Someone here who understands naval architecture and warfare why can’t the US figure out “here’s what we need and here’s how we’ll build it”
One fundamental problem is that the Navy has limited naval architecture and ship design knowledge in-house, having largely outsourced it to industry. That led them to DD-21/DD(X)/DDG-1000, where they knew what capabilities they wanted but had little institutional understanding about how big or expensive such a ship would be or what the real tradeoffs were for cost vs capability. I suspect they are still smarting over how badly they were wrong on that ship. The Burke is at least a mostly known commodity, which is why they keep going back to that well.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,049
Reaction score
40
There's a lot going on at the moment. One issue is that Hypersonics, lasers, railguns, and SWAPC for all the above plus growth margin adequate for 35+ years are all things the Navy doesn't have a great handle on at the moment. Buying more DDG-51s doesn't solve any of those problems, but it allows them to say "we're going with what we know." That's the same sort of conservatism that has always been a problem in the Navy, from the age of steam to the present, and without clear, quality leadership fighting to move the Navy forward, they will move quite slowly.

Another issue is they're doing (yet) another fleet architecture study right now, this one may be be a bit more of a shakeup than usual. They wouldn't want to come out and say it, but I suspect there's a general attitude of kicking the can down the road until that study hits and has been digested by everyone. If it calls for a vastly smaller fleet of large combatants, supplemented by a vastly larger fleet of smaller ones and unmanned platforms, they don't want to be in the middle of the LSC funding push.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,008
Reaction score
198
The problem is, I don't think they don't have time for such a shakeup, even if there was a possibility of it working. They need cruisers in the pipeline now. Another major problem is the anti-cruiser advocates don't want to admit they have been so disastrously wrong.
 
Top