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


Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Yes...even with the Flight IIA tech insert and all of the Flight III ships...at the most which may approach 20, the Burkes will never match the Fletcher class in numbers.

Flight I - 21
Flight II - 07
Flight IIA - 41
FLight IIA restart - 03
Flight IIA Tech insert - 08

(Which makes 52 Flight IIA all together, and 80 Bukres all together before Flight III))

Flight III (Max) - 20

So, we may see 100 Burkes in service...which is very phenomenal.

Ahhh...but in overall capability, they would eat up and destroy all 175 Fletchers, and represent a HUGE capability far in excess of any other destroyer force on earth by themselves.

China may end up in the mid-2020s with:

02 x Type 051C
04 x Sov
02 x Type 052B
06 x Type 052D
24 x Type 052D.
12 Type 055

That's 50 DDGs and would be phenomenal, second only to the US Navy in numbers, and all of them very modern.

But then you have to add 22 Ticos in there and at least 3 Zumwalts (and with a new Presidency, if it the right one, we may see five more of those built)

So the US has 125-130 major combatant of DDG class or more.

Now, if we include FFGs, the Chinese will add a total of:

30 Type 054A/B

In the mid-2020s the US will have probably close to 30 LCS and FF class which are all uparmed. So the overall totals become:

80 major surface combatants for the PLA,
155 major surface combatants for the US Navy.
Jeff, do you expect all 20 Flight III Burkes to have been completed and commissioned by the mid 2020s?

From my own reading, I've seen that the 7th Flight IIA tech insert Burke (USS John Basilone) is expected to be commissioned in 2022, followed by another Flight IIA tech insert, followed finally by the first Flight III Burke which will probably enter service in 2023-2024?
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(edit: USN says the first Flight III Burke will enter service in 2023:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
"This development effort is planned for fielding on new construction AEGIS DDG 51 Flight III ships that will enter service in 2023.")

Assuming a 20 ship production run for Flight III Burke, I imagine they will probably finish production and commission all Flight III Burkes near the end of the 2020s, if not the very early 2030s, rather than the mid 2020s. The Tico cruisers would probably begin retirement by that time as well, which would allow the Flight III Burkes to replace them.

Also, regarding the Chinese Navy's frigate fleet, I personally expect a much larger number of frigates than 30 by 2025; considering they've already got 22 054As in service and another three fitting out (and more likely under construction), I can imagine they will reach 28 or so 054As commissioned by 2018, assuming three ships commissioned per year between now and then.
Assuming a new 054B design begins construction in 2019 two years after the last 054A (say, the 28th) is launched which would probably be next year/2017, and assuming that construction and commissioning of 054B occurs at a slightly lower pace than 054A (say, 2 per year instead of 3-4 per year), I can envision about 8 054Bs being in service by 2025, which would make a total frigate fleet of about 36.
 
Last edited:

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
So the US has 125-130 major combatant of DDG class or more.
:eek:
No right now 84 + 2 AB/year in addition up to 2020 + 3 Zumwalt but after Ticonderoga retired and later AB so max 97 and USN don't have budget for maintain more as China... we not during Cold War with budget about the double than now.

AB get a life time of 35 years as Ticonderoga extended seems to 45 for eleven, same number than CVN for provide 1 by ESG, IIRC AB IIA 40 years.
 

Jeff Head

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #163
First Flight IIA restart Burke DDG, USS John Finn, DDG-113, going through its sea trials:


The other two "restart" Burkes have already been launched, 114 and 115.

That makes 65 Burkes now launched. Two Zumwalt launched. Also 22 Ticonderogas launched, and 13 LCS launched.

Add all of those up and right now the US has 101 major combatants (FFG, DDG, CG) in the water.
 
Last edited:

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
2 new names and the list is full right now :)

U.S. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced the names for two new Arleigh Burke-class destroyers in a ceremony at Vaught-Hemingway Stadium on September 17.
DDG 125, will be named Jack H. Lucas in honor of the Marine Corps hero and Medal of Honor recipient while DDG 126 would be named Louis H. Wilson Jr. in honor of the 26th commandant of the Marine Corps who was also a Medal of Honor recipient.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Flight IIA Restart
PCU John Finn (DDG 113), Under construction (Ingalls Shipbuilding) expected in September 2016
PCU Ralph Johnson (DDG 114), Under construction (Ingalls Shipbuilding) expected in January 2017
PCU Rafael Peralta (DDG 115), Under construction (Bath Iron Works) expected in July 2016 or 2017

Flight IIA Technology Insertion

PCU Thomas Hudner (DDG 116), Under construction (Bath Iron Works) expected in May 2017
PCU Paul Ignatius (DDG 117), Under construction (Ingalls Shipbuilding) expected in January 2018
PCU Daniel Inouye (DDG 118), Under construction (Bath Iron Works) expectedin November 2018
Delbert D. Black (DDG 119), Contract awarded (Ingalls Shipbuilding) expected in July 2019
Carl M. Levin (DDG 120), Contract awarded (Bath Iron Works) expected in January 2020
Frank E. Petersen Jr. (DDG 121)
John Basilone (DDG 122)
Lenah H. Sutcliffe (DDG 123)

Flight III
Harvey C. Barnem Jr. (DDG 124)
Jack H. Lucas (DDG 125)
Louis H. Wilson Jr (DDG 126)
 

Jeff Head

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #165
2 new names and the list is full right now :)

Flight IIA Restart
PCU John Finn (DDG 113), Under construction (Ingalls Shipbuilding) expected in September 2016
PCU Ralph Johnson (DDG 114), Under construction (Ingalls Shipbuilding) expected in January 2017
PCU Rafael Peralta (DDG 115), Under construction (Bath Iron Works) expected in July 2016 or 2017


Flight IIA Technology Insertion

PCU Thomas Hudner (DDG 116), Under construction (Bath Iron Works) expected in May 2017
PCU Paul Ignatius (DDG 117), Under construction (Ingalls Shipbuilding) expected in January 2018
PCU Daniel Inouye (DDG 118), Under construction (Bath Iron Works) expectedin November 2018
Delbert D. Black (DDG 119), Contract awarded (Ingalls Shipbuilding) expected in July 2019
Carl M. Levin (DDG 120), Contract awarded (Bath Iron Works) expected in January 2020
Frank E. Petersen Jr. (DDG 121)
John Basilone (DDG 122)
Lenah H. Sutcliffe (DDG 123)

Flight III
Harvey C. Barnem Jr. (DDG 124)
Jack H. Lucas (DDG 125)
Louis H. Wilson Jr (DDG 126)
Eight under construction and six more named and in the pipeline.

Those eight all to be launched before the end of 2020...and maybe one or two more perhaps.

Also now three Burke IIIs named. Outstanding!

DDG-126 gets us out to a total of 76 Burkes.
 

Jeff Head

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #166
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



uss-rafael-peralta-001.jpg

Naval Today said:
The U.S. Navy’s future Arleigh Burke-class destroyer USS Rafael Peralta (DDG 115) completed acceptance trials December 16 after spending two days underway off the coast of Maine.

USS Rafael Peralta is the third Flight IIA Restart destroyer laid down in October 2014 and christened a year later by the U.S. Navy at the General Dynamics’ Bath Iron Works shipyards.

The U.S. Navy’s Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV) reviewed the ship and its crew during a series of demonstrations while underway. INSURV evaluates the ship’s construction and compliance with Navy specifications and is the governing body that recommends the ship be delivered to the Navy.

Trials were conducted both pier-side and underway. Many of the ship’s onboard systems tested to validate performance, including navigation, damage control, mechanical and electrical systems, combat systems, communications, and propulsion applications, met or exceeded Navy specifications.

The destroyer is equipped with the Aegis baseline 9 combat system, which includes an integrated air and missile defense (IAMD) capability, incorporating the ballistic missile defense 5.0 capability upgrade (BMD 5.0CU) and naval integrated fire control-counter air (NIFC-CA).

According to the U.S Navy, the Aegis baseline 9 IAMD destroyers have increased computing power, along with radar upgrades that improve detection and reaction capabilities against modern air warfare and BMD threats.

Following delivery, DDG 115 will be the 65th Arleigh Burke class destroyer and the first of the DDG 51 FLT IIA restart ships to be built at Bath Iron Works. The shipyard is currently in production on future destroyers Thomas Hudner (DDG 116), Daniel Inouye (DDG 118) and Carl M. Levin (DDG 120) and under contract for three additional ships awarded as part of the five-ship multi-year procurement for FY13-17.
They have the building of these magnifant destroyers down to an art. Notice it was laid down in 2014 and Christened a year later. Bath is working on 3 more, with three more on order after that.

Ingalls is building the same number.

Once they start into the Flight III ships, you can expect 12-20 of them, the Burk IIs to be built, depending on where the Navy is with the CGX. IMHO, tey should get along with the CGX so as to minimize the number of Burke IIs needed.
 

kwaigonegin

Colonel
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!




They have the building of these magnifant destroyers down to an art. Notice it was laid down in 2014 and Christened a year later. Bath is working on 3 more, with three more on order after that.

Ingalls is building the same number.

Once they start into the Flight III ships, you can expect 12-20 of them, the Burk IIs to be built, depending on where the Navy is with the CGX. IMHO, tey should get along with the CGX so as to minimize the number of Burke IIs needed.
The AB hull forms are excellent that why the Navy keeps building them. Once the FLT III ships come online you will see the FLT. I ships getting decom. By then they would've served admirably for 30 and over years.

I look forward to the FSC studies which should wrap up in the initial stages pretty soon. The USN is currently going through a fundamental change in preparing their assets to counter new threats in the next couple of decades. I believe we will see new a new class of destroyer design and forms with modular components and new power generation in the 2030s to run alongside the Burkes.

I would not be surprise if it looks somewhat like a mini Zumwalt but with more conventional overlays. The key is to keep cost down. Zumwalt was suppose to replace the Tico's but her exorbitant cost doomed her. A lot of USN's budget will go towards the SSBN replacement in the next decade or so.
 

Jeff Head

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #168
The AB hull forms are excellent that why the Navy keeps building them. Once the FLT III ships come online you will see the FLT. I ships getting decom. By then they would've served admirably for 30 and over years.

I look forward to the FSC studies which should wrap up in the initial stages pretty soon. The USN is currently going through a fundamental change in preparing their assets to counter new threats in the next couple of decades. I believe we will see new a new class of destroyer design and forms with modular components and new power generation in the 2030s to run alongside the Burkes.

I would not be surprise if it looks somewhat like a mini Zumwalt but with more conventional overlays. The key is to keep cost down. Zumwalt was suppose to replace the Tico's but her exorbitant cost doomed her. A lot of USN's budget will go towards the SSBN replacement in the next decade or so.
A lot of the cost can be attributed to a decades old trick, where particularly progressive liberals, but also some others, including GOP, who get caught up in the political lobbyist game.

They agree upfront to a large number of equipment, in this case vessels, to replace an aging class. Then they allow the money to be spent on the new tech...a lot of money...but then cut the numbers so drastically that the cost per vessel/item is so high that they can then justify cutting it at that level.

The Zumwalt class fell prey to this game.

The Ford may fall prey to it.

If we have built 30, or even 20 of the Zumwlts, the price per item would ahve been drasticall reduced. You have to allow the manf. to cover the R&D costs and on something like the Zumwalt, or Ford where you ar breaking all sorts of new ground to keep the vessel out on the cuttng edge. But when they do not do that, they can get the public, who do not knw the details, behind a campagn to thwart it.

For particular lobbyists, this allows them to come in with their manufacturer who is proposing a less constly (and less capable) upgrade to and existing hull form, or less capable one, and then go away with money in their pocket, and a lot of money donated to the pol de jure.

I hate to see it happen, but it is an old game and the only way to defeat it is to get a majoority of people with integrity and commitment to the services and their improvement in office.

As well, I might add, as someone like Trump in an executive position who knows how to deal with these companies and still ride shotgun on pricing.

Same thing happened to the B-2, stopping it at 20 units and then complaining about the cost per unit, and a similiar excuse was made to cut the F-22 at 184 units.

I magine f we had 400 F-22s, 125 B-2s, 30 Zumwalts, with a follow on class coming in now for another 20 hulls of the same outfitted though as a CGs.

Oh well...I've said my piece.
 

kwaigonegin

Colonel
A lot of the cost can be attributed to a decades old trick, where particularly progressive liberals, but also some others, including GOP, who get caught up in the political lobbyist game.

They agree upfront to a large number of equipment, in this case vessels, to replace an aging class. Then they allow the money to be spent on the new tech...a lot of money...but then cut the numbers so drastically that the cost per vessel/item is so high that they can then justify cutting it at that level.

The Zumwalt class fell prey to this game.

The Ford may fall prey to it.

If we have built 30, or even 20 of the Zumwlts, the price per item would ahve been drasticall reduced. You have to allow the manf. to cover the R&D costs and on something like the Zumwalt, or Ford where you ar breaking all sorts of new ground to keep the vessel out on the cuttng edge. But when they do not do that, they can get the public, who do not knw the details, behind a campagn to thwart it.

For particular lobbyists, this allows them to come in with their manufacturer who is proposing a less constly (and less capable) upgrade to and existing hull form, or less capable one, and then go away with money in their pocket, and a lot of money donated to the pol de jure.

I hate to see it happen, but it is an old game and the only way to defeat it is to get a majoority of people with integrity and commitment to the services and their improvement in office.

As well, I might add, as someone like Trump in an executive position who knows how to deal with these companies and still ride shotgun on pricing.

Same thing happened to the B-2, stopping it at 20 units and then complaining about the cost per unit, and a similiar excuse was made to cut the F-22 at 184 units.

I magine f we had 400 F-22s, 125 B-2s, 30 Zumwalts, with a follow on class coming in now for another 20 hulls of the same outfitted though as a CGs.

Oh well...I've said my piece.
I don't know about Trump. He has already threaten to severely cut the F35 procurement and my sources at Boeing had mention he is not well like there LOL.

With that being said I do agree with you in principle. Basically just economies of scale like anything else but aside from that a lot of the cost actually goes to overhead and inefficiencies.
Someone sees a shiny new project like the Zumwalt and things suddenly increase 10, 20 fold. Like you said a lot of it goes to the integrity the people involved and everyone up and down the supply chain. Many, unfortunately take the opportunity to bloat the cost on new projects for government chargeback in terms of itemized products and time involved.

For example, one of the delays for Zumwalt was also the lack of qualified electricians at BIW to work on both the Burkes and the Zumwalts. This seemingly trivial delay caused massive cost overruns which in turn caused a bottleneck in both lines for Zumwalts and the AB restarts. BIW finally decided to get guys from HII, but the BIW union workers also vehemently opposed those moves. Stupid things like this happens everyday and the taxpayer pays for it.

All these lil things when combined together consequently adds up to delays and massive cost overruns.
 

Jeff Head

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #170
I don't know about Trump. He has already threaten to severely cut the F35 procurement and my sources at Boeing had mention he is not well like there LOL.

With that being said I do agree with you in principle. Basically just economies of scale like anything else but aside from that a lot of the cost actually goes to overhead and inefficiencies.
Someone sees a shiny new project like the Zumwalt and things suddenly increase 10, 20 fold. Like you said a lot of it goes to the integrity the people involved and everyone up and down the supply chain. Many, unfortunately take the opportunity to bloat the cost on new projects for government chargeback in terms of itemized products and time involved.

For example, one of the delays for Zumwalt was also the lack of qualified electricians at BIW to work on both the Burkes and the Zumwalts. This seemingly trivial delay caused massive cost overruns which in turn caused a bottleneck in both lines for Zumwalts and the AB restarts. BIW finally decided to get guys from HII, but the BIW union workers also vehemently opposed those moves. Stupid things like this happens everyday and the taxpayer pays for it.

All these lil things when combined together consequently adds up to delays and massive cost overruns.
I believe Trump will work things out fine for the F-35. The price has been coming down just as Lockheed said it would...and it is doing so because the US and our allies are following through with the orders and the number of aircraft are driving it down.

Trump will try and get more cost savings like any good executive will...and he will use the principles contained in the Art of the Deal to do so.
The Pols and military contractors are not used to that type of dealing and they will come together...and with the uptick he is calling for in the military, he will be able to make everyone happy...but he will also drive a hard bargain.

That will be good up and down the line...including for Boeing.
 

Top