What's new

Bath Iron Works Will Build First Flight III Arleigh Burke DDG

F-22Raptor

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Messages
16,980
Reaction score
3
Country
United States
Location
United States

An artist’s conception of the AMDR AN/SPY-6(v) radar onboard an Arleigh Burke Flight III guided missile destroyer (DDG-51).


The first Flight III Arleigh Burke guided missile destroyer will be built at General Dynamics Bath Iron Works, according to a Sunday statement from the Navy to USNI News.

Last week, the Navy issued a pre-solicitation notice on FedBizOpps stating the service intended to issue a Request for Proposal to Bath Iron Works for a Burke DDG “and associated supplies and services which are anticipated to be delivered in the Flight III configuration,” read the notice.

The ship will feature the first operational installation of the Raytheon AN/SPY-6 Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) – an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar that promises to be 30 times more powerful than the AN/SPY-1 air search radar on the current Flight IIA Burkes.

The first Flight III will be the third DDG funded in 2016 following $1 billion Congress set aside for the third hull in last year’s defense bill. The service had intended to build two destroyers in 2016 but the additional funds Congress included prompted the Navy to ask for an additional $433 million in its Fiscal Year 2017 unfunded requirements list to complete the third 2016 hull.

“We’re budgeted for two Flight IIAs plus one Flight III mod. We awarded two Flight IIAs and we still have the balance of funding for the Flight III mod. And now we’re waiting to get this additional FY 16 ship in hand in a timely manner to award the ECP for this [third] ship,” Sean Stackley, assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition told USNI News following an April 7 hearing before the Senate armed services seapower committee.
“If we can’t get this ship in a timely manner then we’ll have to modify one of the two that are already under contract.”

Prior to the pre-solicitation, both Bath and Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) had been working on the detailed design work for the Flight III. The configuration will be built by both shipbuilders.


Naval Sea Systems Command Image


In addition to the SPY-6, the changes to the design will increase the power available on the ship by three Rolls Royce 3-megawatt generators on the Flight IIA ships with Rolls Royce’s 4-megawatt generator in the same footprint on the ship.

The electrical grid on the ship will also be upgraded from the 450-volt configuration to a 4,160-volt grid which will lead to additional design changes.

Bath getting the extra Fiscal Year 2016 ship was part of a so-called “swap agreement” between HII and Bath, the Navy said.

“The Navy intends to award the third FY16 DDG 51 ship to Bath Iron Works. This corresponds to the December 2015 long lead time material contract award for LPD 28 to Huntington Ingalls and would be in addition to the currently contracted multiyear ships, subject to congressional authorization and appropriation,” read the Navy statement.

In a Saturday statement Maine Senators Angus King and Susan Collins said, “there is no workforce in the world better positioned to build the first of the Navy’s upgraded destroyers, which will help ensure that the strength of our Navy’s capabilities remain unrivaled.”

https://news.usni.org/2016/05/01/bath-iron-works-will-build-first-flight-iii-arleigh-burke-ddg
 
The ship will feature the first operational installation of the Raytheon AN/SPY-6 Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) – an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar that promises to be 30 times more powerful than the AN/SPY-1 air search radar on the current Flight IIA Burkes.

In what terms will the new AESA radar be "30 times more powerful" than the current one on Flight IIA Burkes? 30 times increase in range? Precision? How is it "measured" that it's "30 times" more powerful?

And lastly, is that statement even true or just a publicity/selling stunt? @F-22Raptor @gambit
 
do we really need more Arleigh Burkes??

I like the idea of putting the AN/SPY 6 on the San Antonio Class hulls.
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/lockheed-wants-to-install-the-aegis-combat-system-on-ne-1770342034

Burke can only handle a 14 foot AMDR while a 20 foot+ is what is needed for future threats and the San Antonio should handle that.

just more potential with the San Antonio hull.


BMD-ship-003-130408-SeaAirSpace-HII-Lisa-Nova-Scotia-2012-642.jpg
 
In what terms will the new AESA radar be "30 times more powerful" than the current one on Flight IIA Burkes? 30 times increase in range? Precision? How is it "measured" that it's "30 times" more powerful?

And lastly, is that statement even true or just a publicity/selling stunt? @F-22Raptor @gambit

Target management.

SPY-6 can handle 30 times more target than SPY-1 due to improved bandwidth and algorithm.

With much larger arrays, AMDR, is said to be at least 30-times more sensitive than radars configured on existing DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. The new radar can simultaneously handle over 30 times the targets than existing AN/SPY-1D(V), to counter large and complex raids.

http://defense-update.com/20150512_amdr_cdr.html
 
Just wandering . shouldn't the US invest more in a new destroyer ?
 
Back
Top Bottom