Military Review

US Navy ordered two more destroyers Arleigh Burke

39
According to the portal navaltoday.comThe US Navy has signed a contract with General Dynamics Bath Iron Works for the construction of two more destroyers on the renewed Arleigh Burke project, which have been under construction for three decades and still remain one of the most high-tech warships in the world.


In 2013, the US Navy command approved the updated Arleigh Burke project, called Flight III. The new modification of the destroyer has replaced the numerous variants of the Flight IIA project, in which ships are being built from 1998 onwards.

US Navy ordered two more destroyers Arleigh Burke

Superstructure Destroyer Arleigh Burke modification Flight III

Under the contract, Bath Iron Works shipyard will complete the previously ordered destroyer DDG 126 Louis H. Wilson Jr. with changes in the project Flight III. In addition, the US Navy ordered the construction of another ship with the number DDG 127, has not yet received the official name.
The main innovation of the Flight III project was the installation of the Advanced Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) AN / SPY-6 (v) radar system, which will replace the SPY-1 radar. In addition, new destroyers will receive a modified superstructure, as well as enhanced power plant and some changes in the hull design, increasing the survivability of the ship. In addition, the Flight III destroyers of the Flight III project will be staffed with a larger number of personnel.

Ships such as Arleigh Burke are the only destroyers of the US Navy (not counting the experimental type Zumwalt). Their displacement is over 9000 t, length - more than 150 m, width - 20 m. Ships of this class are equipped with artillery and rocket launchers, anti-aircraft artillery, and also mine and torpedo armament. In addition, each of the destroyers can carry one or two helicopters (depending on the generation to which a ship belongs). Today, the US Navy is armed with 66 ships of this type, reports "Warspot".
Photos used:
http://navaltoday.com/
39 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. NEXUS
    NEXUS 3 October 2017 13: 47 New
    +9
    Hmm ... we can only envy ... and we have the construction of frigates and corvettes is slow and with big problems. So far, we only have to dream about destroyers.
    1. DEPARTMENT
      DEPARTMENT 3 October 2017 13: 51 New
      +1
      Quote: NEXUS
      Hmm ... we can only envy ... and we have the construction of frigates and corvettes is slow and with big problems. So far, we only have to dream about destroyers.

      But we have electronic warfare ...! Let not so far, but checked already and proved to be good!
      Let him come to the shores of Syria ...
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 3 October 2017 13: 57 New
        +8
        Quote: DEPARTMENT
        But we have electronic warfare ...!

        EW is not a panacea and even less a universal means of dealing with everything that walks in the seas, flies in the sky and moves on the ground. We do not build surface ships of the first rank and this is a very big problem. And domestic gas turbines will go into production only in the year 18 ... there is something to be sad about.
      2. Burbon
        Burbon 3 October 2017 13: 58 New
        +5
        Quote: DEPARTMENT
        But we have electronic warfare ...!

        ? and they have what?
      3. vadsonen
        vadsonen 3 October 2017 15: 21 New
        +6
        But we have electronic warfare ...! Let not so far, but checked already and proved to be good!

        Are you talking about the story about Cook and Drying in the Black Sea?
        Let him come to the shores of Syria ...

        Already approached, fired at the Syrian air base, and calmly returned.
    2. oldseaman1957
      oldseaman1957 3 October 2017 13: 54 New
      +2
      To date, the US Navy has in service 66 ships of this type, reports "Warspot".
      Quote: NEXUS
      and we have the construction of frigates and corvettes is slow and with big problems.
      - As I understand it, at first Russia was trying to break through many small ships, such as small missile ships, but with Caliber. At least for now, to compensate for the gap. Along the way and replenish.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 3 October 2017 14: 03 New
        +8
        Quote: oldseaman1957
        - As I understand it, at first Russia is trying

        Our fleet upgrade is extremely bad and unacceptably slow. I generally will not say anything about the cruiser, but we still don’t have a replacement for the Sarychs ... or rather they are trying to replace them with frigates of project 22350. But first, the gas turbines for these frigates will be only in the year 18, and second, we do not even in the near future have plans to build destroyer-class ships with a gas turbine. There is a project with a gas turbine destroyer, but it is positioned as an export one.
        1. Arberes
          Arberes 3 October 2017 14: 18 New
          +5
          Quote: NEXUS
          we don’t even have plans for the construction of destroyer ships in the near future

          You are right dear NEXUS hi
          There is something to be sad about. Destroyers are the backbone of the fleet! Our cruisers will need a replacement in 15 years, and the alternative in the form of destroyers is only on paper.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 3 October 2017 14: 23 New
            +6
            Quote: Arberes
            and the alternative in the form of destroyers is still only on paper.

            Well, it seems like they started the development, but at what stage it is not clear now ... I repeat, this is the export version of the Shkval destroyer (project 23560E) .That is, the same Leader project, but with a gas turbine and less displacement ...

            This is the preliminary appearance of the Flurry.
            I have already said for a long time that we ourselves need such a destroyer, with a displacement of 8-10 thousand tons, but so far these are only dreams.
            1. Arberes
              Arberes 3 October 2017 14: 46 New
              +4
              Quote: NEXUS
              Leader’s project, but with GTU

              Well, personally, I have repeatedly come across information about nuclear engines for the Leader !?
              The final solution for our ships?
              If we have problems with gas turbines, then the alternative is nuclear weapons?
              According to the export version, for starters, would you at least do 5 things yourself? As world practice shows, a product is better sold to a foreign market if it is already delivered to its own fleet. drinks
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS 3 October 2017 14: 55 New
                +3
                Quote: Arberes
                Well, personally, I have repeatedly come across information about nuclear engines for the Leader !?

                On the new Arctic icebreaker ALREADY are YASU RITM-200, which they claim to be the power plant for the destroyer Leader.
                Moreover, they declare a series of 13-15 boards of this destroyer for our fleets.

                Quote: Arberes
                If we have problems with gas turbines, then an alternative to nuclear power plants?

                This is not quite an alternative.The destroyer Leader was originally designed with YaSU and should replace Atlanta, Orlan and Sarychi ... but I think that Sarychi should be replaced with something more numerous and simple ... for example, the same Flurry with GTU. It will be less than the Leader and much cheaper, which makes it possible to build them in a large series.
                But judging by the statements of Shoigu, the frigates of project 22350 and 22350M (super-pots) will become the basis of our fleets.
                Quote: Arberes
                As world practice shows, a product is better sold to a foreign market if it is already delivered to its own fleet.

                And this is what we have to hope that if they start to build squalls, then our fleets first.
                1. Arberes
                  Arberes 3 October 2017 15: 04 New
                  +2
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  Moreover, they declare a series of 13-15 boards of this destroyer for our fleets.

                  God forbid, as they say! Although the figure is doubtful? No, well, if oil again rises to 100 Baku.
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  , Buzzers should be replaced by something more numerous and simple

                  Here on Sarych! We have a modernized project - Admiral Chabanenko 1155.1! Can continue to upgrade or the game is not worth the candle? Gorshkovs on the way?
                  1. NEXUS
                    NEXUS 3 October 2017 15: 16 New
                    +4
                    Quote: Arberes
                    Admiral Chabanenko 1155.1! May continue to upgrade or the game is not worth the candle

                    No ... this project is outdated and needs to be reviewed. It's easier to finish the Flurry project of the same ...
                    And the Gorshkovs ... well, at the moment, it’s kind of laid, or here they’ll lay the frigate of project 22356. It seems like an improved version of Gorshkov ...

                    Here is a link for reference ... http: //www.oaoosk.ru/products/proj
                    ect-22356 /
                    1. Alexander War
                      Alexander War 3 October 2017 15: 27 New
                      +3
                      I am for such a frigate of project 22356! With 8 Caliber, 8 Onyx and 36 Shtil-1 air defense missiles
                      1. NEXUS
                        NEXUS 3 October 2017 15: 32 New
                        +3
                        Quote: Alexander War
                        I am for such a frigate of project 22356! With 8 Caliber, 8 Onyx and 36 Shtil-1 air defense missiles

                        Well, let’s say so, Gorshkov on steroids ... the main thing here is not to get into a mess, cramming the invisible ... hi That is, if a soldier hangs 20 Kalash, 5 Bumblebees, and a bunch of grenades and ammunition, then I doubt very much that he will fight effectively, and he will be armed no worse than a tank.
                      2. karabas-barabas
                        karabas-barabas 4 October 2017 20: 17 New
                        0
                        Not enough weapons will be? Okay, under 40 cells under the long-range intercept air defense system, NATO has a lot of all kinds of aircraft and this is normal, but will it be enough for 8 Callibres and 8 Onyxes? Berks have under 100 cells for everything possible, axes, anti-aircraft missiles, that is, theoretically, one Burke can fill up a rather large fleet, which means that even if the emphasis is on ships with a lower displacement, then there should be several dozen cells in the belly. In the open oceans, the Russian fleet does not shine much in the event of a war with NATO, or only the United States, and I’m afraid it will never change, because creating an equivalent fleet to the US, even if Russia becomes the world leader in living standards and economics, will be economic suicide Now the Russian Federation as a percentage of GDP, or the budget, is throwing 2-2,5 times more on military spending than the United States and NATO countries on average (more than 5% in Russia and about 2,5 in NATO countries). After all, it will be necessary to build not only dozens of destroyers, but also a dozen aircraft carriers, 5 dozen multi-purpose submarines of the 4th generation and hundreds of other ships and ships, which of course is utopia. But a well-armed coastal fleet, of hundreds of high-speed multi-purpose, barely noticeable ships, with dozens of cells each, with the support of AWACS aircraft and 5th generation multipurpose aircraft, which, by the way, also need hundreds, can completely scare off the American fleet, or cause significant damage. Since under the water at the moment the Americans dominate quite seriously and no fleet, even one with super missiles, can’t pull out without protection from the enemy’s submarines, you need to think about effective measures and probably you should think about autonomous, unmanned submarines, with torpedo weapons and reconnaissance , which is not a pity even will exchange for any underwater or surface ship of the US Navy. Of course, it will also be expensive, but it will be much cheaper and faster to build than aircraft carrier formations and heavy destroyers such as Burke.
                    2. Bronevick
                      Bronevick 3 October 2017 19: 13 New
                      0
                      Until 2025 must pass 4 "Gorshkova".
            2. Bronevick
              Bronevick 3 October 2017 19: 12 New
              0
              There are even no plans for OCD. By 2030 may design complete.
        2. Olegovi4
          Olegovi4 3 October 2017 14: 59 New
          0
          Quote: NEXUS
          Our fleet upgrade is extremely bad and unacceptably slow.

          priority is Strategic Missile Forces, land and aviation. and this is logical.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 3 October 2017 15: 04 New
            +4
            Quote: Olegovi4
            priority is Strategic Missile Forces, land and aviation. and this is logical.

            The priority is of course important ... but you only understand what setuyevina, that our nuclear triad has 3! side. And one of these sides, the nuclear component of the fleet, which, according to some smart people, is the most effective of all three. And if we equip the fleet according to the residual principle, then very soon (taking into account 25 years of downtime) we will turn from an ocean power to a coastal one.
            By the way, the Russian Federation is washed by three oceans, and the surface of the earth’s ball is two-thirds of the water surface.
            1. Arberes
              Arberes 3 October 2017 15: 11 New
              +3
              Quote: NEXUS
              By the way, the Russian Federation is washed by three oceans,

              The Russian Navy with strike ships and submarines is a large-caliber pistol at the temple of our potential partner. A very restraining argument for the hot goals from Washington. We need a fleet!
            2. Alexander War
              Alexander War 3 October 2017 15: 31 New
              +3
              Submarines with nuclear missiles are yes a priority for the Navy! Go find them smile
    3. Burbon
      Burbon 3 October 2017 13: 58 New
      +1
      Quote: NEXUS
      It remains only to envy.

      that's for sure ... they say the redoubt flew away? .... it seems like everything turned out ... maybe a series of pot and (m) will go?
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 3 October 2017 14: 10 New
        +8
        Quote: Burbon
        .can go a series of pots and (m)?

        I think the project of frigates of project 22350 will be improved and at the exit it will be a slightly different ship than the base one. In addition, there are plans to build super-pottery project 22350M with an increased displacement of 1100 tons, that is, in fact, light destroyers. It is this project that inspires me hope that the Leader destroyers will also be able to build, the more the power plant is already being rolled in at the Icebreaker Arctic (project 22220) RITM-200.
        1. San Sanych
          San Sanych 3 October 2017 14: 41 New
          +1
          if they build 22350 with an increased displacement, then in fact they are more likely destroyers than frigates, and the Leader project is already a cruiser, not a destroyer. Although the classification in our time is perhaps an empty formality. The main thing is that in the Russian fleet there are ships of all ranks in the required quantity. And the class of cruisers will probably remain in the past, as will the battleships.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 3 October 2017 14: 47 New
            +2
            Quote: San Sanych
            if they build 22350 with increased displacement, then in fact it’s more likely destroyers,

            Well, to be precise, then a light destroyer.
            Quote: San Sanych
            and the Leader project is already a cruiser, not a destroyer

            The abbreviation "destroyer" is conditional. In fact, it really is the ARC (nuclear missile cruiser), given the displacement, arsenal, etc. ...
            Quote: San Sanych
            The main thing is that in the Russian fleet there are ships of all ranks in the required quantity.

            I say that for the Russian fleets TODAY do not build surface ships of the first rank.
            1. Corsair0304
              Corsair0304 3 October 2017 15: 01 New
              0
              Quote: NEXUS
              Quote: San Sanych
              if they build 22350 with increased displacement, then in fact it’s more likely destroyers,

              Well, to be precise, then a light destroyer.
              Quote: San Sanych
              and the Leader project is already a cruiser, not a destroyer

              The abbreviation "destroyer" is conditional. In fact, it really is the ARC (nuclear missile cruiser), given the displacement, arsenal, etc. ...
              Quote: San Sanych
              The main thing is that in the Russian fleet there are ships of all ranks in the required quantity.

              I say that for the Russian fleets TODAY do not build surface ships of the first rank.


              Is there an urgent need for the construction of such ships? What would it be right now and immediately? Not that I objected to you, I just want to hear arguments in favor of building one ship of the first rank to several light destroyers (time / money / shipyard resources, etc.)

              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS 3 October 2017 15: 12 New
                +3
                Quote: Corsair0304
                Not that I objected to you, I just want to hear arguments in favor of building one ship of the first rank to several light destroyers (time / money / shipyard resources, etc.)

                The argument is ridiculously simple. We are a state whose border is washed by as many as 3 oceans, while we have the longest border in the world. Frigates are certainly great, like corvettes, but ... what is the basis of any KUG? True, cruisers and destroyers, which are the main striking force of the naval group. At the same time, striking functions are far from everything. First of all, it is necessary to protect yourself and the order from the KR, anti-ship missiles, torpedoes, etc., which is the direct responsibility of the destroyers in the order. Answer me, frigates and corvettes are able to provide such protection to the order?
                At the same time, there is one more thing for everyone, that there is also a marine component in the nuclear triad, which implies access to the ocean, which in turn requires the protection of our missile carriers and their cover. These are not all the reasons, but I hope I conveyed my thought to you.
                1. Corsair0304
                  Corsair0304 4 October 2017 14: 15 New
                  0
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  The argument is ridiculously simple. We are a state whose border is washed by as many as 3 oceans, while we have the longest border in the world.

                  Frigates and corvettes are just called upon to protect the longest border of the three oceans. Cruisers are weapons of "long arms and demonstrations of the flag of the state." The cruiser needs to dock additional additional ships of various kinds and purposes.
                  This is exactly what I’m saying: the construction of a ship of the first rank is not only costly in terms of finances and time, but also entails additional difficulties. Well, they built a cruiser - and who will keep the borders?
                  In my opinion, to begin with, saturate the fleet with defense means, and then you can move on to attack means
                  1. NEXUS
                    NEXUS 4 October 2017 14: 52 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Corsair0304
                    In my opinion, to begin with, saturate the fleet with defense means, and then you can move on to attack means

                    The formation of a powerful ocean fleet involves pulling the forces of the adversary to their shores in order to protect them, and accordingly he will have far less thoughts of removing his ships and sending them to our shores. You can’t even imagine how much manpower, resources, ships, etc. are needed to track, supervise and escort the enemy KMG, which is also packed to the top with long-range weapons both on land and along the coast.
                    And therefore, building ships of the coastal zone, as you said, saturating the defense of the coast, no one bothers to build ships of the first rank. Is it costly? Of course. Well, so the fleet is generally a costly affair in principle.
              2. San Sanych
                San Sanych 3 October 2017 15: 23 New
                +2
                Well, why urgently? first you need to bring to mind the ships of the corvette class, the frigate, and then we'll see, but ships of the 1st rank will still be needed, you can’t do without them, and aircraft carriers too
              3. Arberes
                Arberes 3 October 2017 15: 25 New
                +3
                Quote: Corsair0304
                I just want to hear arguments in favor of building one ship of the first rank to several light destroyers

                I'm not special in the Navy, but I dare to answer you.
                The ship of the first rank is, first of all, increased autonomy of navigation. This is a larger displacement necessary for a serious arsenal of the ship. There will be new weapons systems - air defense and missile defense. Hydroacoustics and radars! All this requires space on the ship. The British relied on the air defense of their destroyers. One such ship covers several ships in the warrant in its sector or all ships if the warrant is small.
                That something like this. hi
        2. Alexander War
          Alexander War 3 October 2017 15: 48 New
          +3
          22350M with an increased displacement of 1100 tons, that is, in fact, light destroyers. Not light destroyers, but the path to a normal destroyer! Just look at China! Here, the US has been stamping destroyers for how many decades, as they say their hand is full and everything is debugged, that's why they are 1 destroyer can take them in two years, even two, two shipyards build them!
  2. Alexander War
    Alexander War 3 October 2017 15: 35 New
    +2
    NEXUS,
    This ship is considered pr 22350, only with a proven weapon on pr 11356
  3. Alexander War
    Alexander War 3 October 2017 15: 41 New
    +2
    NEXUS,
    Honestly, I would now order more corvettes at the place of the Russian Navy, pr 20385, I would only replace the air defense if I also set the Calm-1 with 12 missiles, if it allows for displacement! If it does not allow it, leave it as it is!
  4. Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 3 October 2017 16: 02 New
    +2
    It remains only to breathe nervously .... about such deadlines as ships are being built in the USA, we can only dream of.
    1. Alexander War
      Alexander War 3 October 2017 16: 15 New
      +3
      They built two shipyards for these destroyers and have been building for more than a dozen years, so they have everything brought to automatism!
  5. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 3 October 2017 16: 11 New
    +1
    They will all begin to soon change radars for a new generation.
    Which works simultaneously in a wide range of frequencies.
    This will be a serious upgrade.
  6. rocket757
    rocket757 3 October 2017 23: 17 New
    +5
    A BIG fleet is VERY expensive ... that, again, to rip the country to the bottom.
    A large fleet must have a REAL, BIG task
    A large fleet, with large ships, is the possibility of projecting FORCE anywhere in the world, washed by the open sea / ocean. The question is, do we need it, is it within our power?
    The large ships of the OCEAN Fleet have never been a significant part of the NUCLEAR TRIAD ..., in this regard, auxiliary functions ...
    A fleet is needed, but within reasonable limits and without overstrain. At least for now.