Arleigh Burke-class destroyer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
USS Arleigh Burke (DDG-51)
The USS Arleigh Burke (DDG-51), the lead ship of her class, underway in the Mediterranean Sea in March 2003.
Class overview
Name:Arleigh Burke-class destroyer
Operators: United States Navy
Preceded by:Kidd-class guided missile destroyer
Succeeded by:Zumwalt-class guided missile destroyer
Cost:US$1,843M (DDG 114–116, FY2011/12)[1]
Planned:75[2]
Completed:62
Active:62
General characteristics
Type:Destroyer
Displacement:
Fully loaded:
  • Flight I: 8,315 t (8,184 long tons; 9,166 short tons)
  • Flight II: 8,400 t (8,300 long tons; 9,300 short tons)
  • Flight IIA: 9,200 t (9,100 long tons; 10,100 short tons)
  • Flight III: 9,800 t (9,600 long tons; 10,800 short tons)[3]
Length:505 ft (154 m) (Flights I and II)
509 ft (155 m) (Flight IIA)
Beam:66 ft (20 m)
Draft:30.5 ft (9.3 m)
Installed power:3x Allison AG9140 Generators (2500kW each, 440V)
Propulsion:4 General Electric LM2500-30 gas turbines each generating 27,000 shp(20,000 kW);
coupled to two shafts, each driving a five-bladed reversible controllable pitch propeller;
Total output: 108,000 shp (81,000 kW)
Speed:In excess of 30 kn (56 km/h; 35 mph)
Range:4,400 nmi (8,100 km) at 20 kn (37 km/h; 23 mph)
Boats & landing
craft carried:		2 Rigid hull inflatable boats
Complement:
  • Flight I: 303 total[4]
  • Flight IIA: 23 officers, 300 enlisted[5]
Sensors and
processing systems:
Electronic warfare
& decoys:
Armament:

Aircraft carried:
Aviation facilities:
  • Flights I and II: Flight deck only, but LAMPS III electronics installed on landing deck for coordinated DDG-51/helo ASW operations
  • Flight IIA onwards: Flight deck and enclosed hangars for two MH-60R LAMPS III helicopters
The Arleigh Burke class of guided missile destroyers (DDGs) is the United States Navy's first class of destroyer built around the Aegis Combat Systemand the SPY-1D multi-function phased array radar. The class is named forAdmiral Arleigh Burke, the most famous American destroyer officer of World War II, and later Chief of Naval Operations. The class leader, USS Arleigh Burke, was commissioned during Admiral Burke's lifetime.
They were designed as multi-role destroyers[8] to fit the AAW (Anti-Aircraft Warfare) with their powerful Aegis radar and anti-aircraft missiles, ASW (Anti-submarine warfare), with their towed sonar array, anti-submarine rockets, and ASW helicopter, ASUW (Anti-surface warfare) with their Harpoon missilelauncher, and strategic land strike using their Tomahawk missiles. Some versions of the class no longer have the towed sonar, or Harpoon missile launcher. Their hull and superstructure were designed to have a reduced radar cross section[9] The first ship of the class was commissioned on 4 July 1991. With the decommissioning of the last Spruance-class destroyer,Cushing, on 21 September 2005, the Arleigh Burke-class ships became the U.S. Navy's only active destroyers; the class has the longest production run for any postwar U.S. Navy surface combatant.[10] The Arleigh Burke class is planned to be the third most numerous class of destroyer to serve in the U.S. Navy, after the Fletcher and Gearing classes; besides the 62 vessels of this class (comprising 21 of Flight I, 7 of Flight II and 34 of Flight IIA) in service by 2013, up to a further 42 (of Flight III) have been envisaged.
With an overall length of 505 feet (154 m) to 509 feet (155 m), displacement ranging from 8,315 to 9,200 tons, and weaponry including over 90 missiles, the Arleigh Burke-class ships are larger and more heavily armed than most previous ships classified as guided missile cruisers.[11]

Characteristics[edit]

USS Cole and two other Arleigh Burke-class vessels docked in Norfolk, Virginia
The Arleigh Burke class is among the largest destroyers built in theUnited States. Only theSpruance and Kidd classeswere longer (563 ft). TheBurke class are multi-mission ships with a "combination of... an advanced anti-submarine warfare system, land attack cruise missiles, ship-to-ship missiles, and advanced anti-aircraft missiles,"[12]The larger Ticonderoga-class ships were constructed on Spruance-class hullforms, but are designated as cruisers due to their radically different mission and weapons systems. The Burke class on the other hand were designed with a new, large, water-plane area-hull form characterized by a wide flaring which significantly improves sea-keeping ability. The hull form is designed to permit high speed in high sea states.[9]
The Arleigh Burke's designers incorporated lessons learned from theTiconderoga-class guided-missile cruisers; with the Arleigh Burke class, the U.S. Navy also returned to all-steel construction. An earlier generation had combined a steel hull with an innovative superstructure made of lighteraluminum to reduce topweight, but the lighter metal proved vulnerable to cracking. Aluminum is also less fire-resistant than steel.[13] A 1975 fire aboardUSS Belknap gutted her aluminum superstructure.[14] Battle damage to Royal Navy ships exacerbated by their aluminum superstructures during the 1982Falklands War supported the decision to use steel. Another lesson from the Falklands War[12] led the navy to protect the ship's vital spaces with double-spaced steel armor (creating a buffer for modern rockets), and kevlar spall liners.
The Ticonderoga-class cruisers were deemed too expensive to continue building and too difficult to further upgrade.[citation needed] The angled rather than traditional vertical surfaces and the tripod mainmast of the Arleigh Burkedesign are stealth techniques,[15][16] which make the ship more difficult to detect, in particular by anti-ship missiles.
A Collective Protection System makes the Arleigh Burke class the first U.S. warships designed with an air-filtration system against nuclear, biological and chemical warfare.[17] Other NBC defenses include a "countermeasure wash down system".[18]
Their Aegis radar differs from a traditional rotating radar that mechanically rotates 360 degrees for each "sweep" scan of the airspace which allows continual tracking of targets.[9] The system's computer control also allows centralization of the previously separate tracking and targeting functions.[9]The system is also resistant to electronic counter-measures.[9] Their standalone Harpoon anti-ship missile launchers give them an anti-ship capability with a range in excess of 64 nm.[9] " The 5"/54 caliber Mark 45 gun, in conjunction with the Mark 34 Gun Weapon System, is an anti-ship weapon which can also be used for close-in air contacts or to support forces ashore with Naval Gun-Fire Support (NGF), with a range of up to 20 miles and capable of firing 20 rounds per minute."[9] The class' Sparrow missile provide point defense against missiles and aircraft while the Standard Missile provides area anti-aircraft defense, additionally the ship has an electronics warfaresuite that provides passive detection and decoy countermeasures.[9]
The class' Light airborne multipurpose system, or LAMPS helicopter system improves the ship's capabilities against submarines and surface ships, a helicopter able to serve as a platform to monitor submarines and surface ships, and launch torpedoes and missiles against them, as well as being able to support ground assaults with machine guns and Hellfire anti-armor guided missiles.[19] The helicopters also serve in a utility role, able to perform ship replenishment, search and rescue, medical evacuation, communications relay, and naval gunfire spotting and controlling.
Arleigh Burke-class destroyers have many combat systems. Burkes have the Navy's latest anti-submarine combat system with active sonar, a towed sonar array, and anti-submarine rockets.[9] They support strategic land strikes with their VLS launched Tomahawks.[9] They are able to detect anti-ship mines at a range of 1400 yards.[20]
So vital has the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMD) role of the class become that all ships of the class are being updated with BMD capability.[21][22] Burke production is being restarted in place of additionalZumwalt-class destroyers.[23]

Development[edit]

In 1980, the U.S. Navy initiated design studies with seven contractors. By 1983 the number of competitors had been reduced to three:Bath Iron Works, Todd Shipyards and Ingalls Shipbuilding.[17] On 3 April 1985 Bath Iron Works received a US$321.9 million contract to build the first of class, USS Arleigh Burke.[24] Gibbs & Cox was awarded the contract to be the lead ship design agent.[25] The total cost of the first ship was put at US$1.1 billion, the other US$778 million being for the ship's weapons systems.[24] She was laid down by the Bath Iron Works at Bath, Maine, on 6 December 1988, and launched on 16 September 1989 by Mrs. Arleigh Burke. The Admiral himself was present at her commissioning ceremony on 4 July 1991, held on the waterfront in downtown Norfolk, Virginia.
Profile of Flight IIA Arleigh Burke-class destroyer.
The "Flight IIA Arleigh Burke" ships have several new features, beginning with theUSS Oscar Austin (DDG-79). Among the changes are the addition of two hangars forASW helicopters, and a new, longer Mark 45 Mod 4 5-inch/62-caliber naval gun (fitted on USS Winston S. Churchill (DDG-81) and later ships). Later Flight IIA ships starting with USS Mustin (DDG-89) have a modified funnel design that buries the funnels within the superstructure as a signature-reduction measure. TACTAS towed array sonar was omitted from Flight IIA ships and they also lack Harpoon missile launchers. Ships from DDG-68 to DDG-84 have AN/SLQ-32 antennas that resemble V3 configuration similar to those deployed on Ticonderoga-class cruisers, while the remainder have V2 variants externally resembling those deployed on some Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates. V3 has an activeelectronic countermeasures component while V2 is passive only. A number of Flight IIA ships were constructed without a Phalanx CIWS because of the planned Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile, but later the Navy decided to retrofit all IIA ships to carry at least one Phalanx CIWS by 2013.[26]
USS Pinckney, USS Momsen, USS Chung-Hoon, USS Nitze, USS James E. Williams and USS Bainbridge[27] have superstructure differences to accommodate the Remote Mine-hunting System (RMS). Mk 32 torpedo tubes were moved to the missile deck from amidships as well.

Modernization[edit]

The U.S. Navy has begun a modernization program for the Arleigh Burke class aimed at improving the gun systems on the ships in an effort to address congressional concerns over the retirement of the Iowa-class battleships. This modernization was to include an extension of the range of the 5-inch (127 mm) guns on the flight I Arleigh Burke-class destroyers (USS Arleigh Burke to USS Ross) with extended range guided munitions (ERGMs) that would have given the guns a range of 40 nautical miles (74 km).[28][29][30]However, the ERGM was cancelled in 2008.[31]
The modernization program is designed to provide a comprehensive mid-life upgrade to ensure that the class remains effective. Reduced manning, increased mission effectiveness, and a reduced total cost including construction, maintenance, and operation are the goals of the modernization program. Modernization technologies will be integrated during new construction of DDG-111 and 112, then retrofitted into DDG flight I and II ships during in-service overhaul periods.[32] The first phase will update the hull, mechanical, and electrical systems while the second phase will introduce an open architecture computing environment (OACE). The result will be improved capability in both ballistic missile defense (BMD) and littoral combat.[33][34] By 2018 all Burkes homeported in the Western Pacific will have upgraded anti-submarine systems, including the new AN/SQR-20 Multifunction Towed Array.[35]
The Navy is also upgrading the ships' ability to process data. Beginning with USS Spruance, the Navy is installing an internet protocol(IP) based data backbone, which enhances the ship's ability to handle video. Spruance is the first destroyer to be fitted with the Boeing Company's gigabit Ethernet data multiplex system (GEDMS).[36]
In July 2010 BAE Systems announced that it had been awarded a contract to modernize 11 ships.[37]

Production restarted and further development[edit]

The class was scheduled to be replaced by Zumwalt-class destroyers beginning in 2020,[38] but an increasing threat from both long- and short-range missiles caused the Navy to restart production of the Arleigh Burke-class and consider placing littoral combat mission modules on the new ships.[39][40]
In April 2009 the Navy announced a plan that limited the Zumwalt-class to three units while ordering another three Arleigh Burke-class ships from both Bath Iron Works and Ingalls Shipbuilding.[23] In December 2009 Northrop Grumman received a $170.7 million letter contract for DDG-113 long-lead-time materials.[41] Shipbuilding contracts for DDG-113 to DDG-115 were awarded in mid-2011 for US$679.6m–$783.6m;[42] these do not include government-furnished equipment such as weapons and sensors which will take the average cost of the FY2011/12 ships to US$1,842.7m per vessel.[1] DDG-113 to DDG-115 will be "restart" ships, similar to previous Flight IIA ships, but including modernization features such as Open Architecture Computing Environment; DDG-116 to DDG-121 will be "Technology Insertion" ships with elements of Flight III, and Flight III proper will start with DDG-122.[43]
Flight III ships, construction starting in FY2016 in place of the canceled CG(X) program, have various design improvements including radar antennas of mid-diameter increased to 14 feet (4.3 m) from the previous 12 feet (3.7 m).[44] These Air and Missile Defense Radars (AMDR) use digital beamforming, instead of the earlier Passive Electronically Scanned Array radars.[45]
However, costs for the Flight III ships increased rapidly as expectations and requirements for the program have grown. In particular, this was due to the changing requirements needed to carry the proposed Air and Missile Defense Radar system required for the ships' ballistic missile defense role.[46] The Government Accountability Office found that the design of the Flight IIIs was based on "a significantly reduced threat environment from other Navy analyses" and that the new ships would be "at best marginally effective".[47]
In spite of the production restart, the Navy is expected to fall short of its requirement for 94 missile-defense-capable destroyer and cruiser platforms starting in FY 2025 and continuing past the end of the 30-year planning window. While this is a new requirement as of 2011, and the United States Navy has never had so many large missile-armed surface combatants, the relative success of the Aegis ballistic missile defense system has shifted this national security requirement onto the Navy. The shortfall will arise as older platforms that have been refitted to be missile-defense-capable (particularly the cruisers) are retired in bulk before new destroyers are planned to be built.[48]
The Navy is considering extending the acquisition of Arleigh Burke-class destroyers into the 2040s, according to revised procurement tables sent to Congress, which have the Navy procuring Flight IV ships from 2032 through 2041.[49]

Operational history[edit]

See also: USS Cole bombing
Arleigh Burke-class destroyer USS Cole was damaged on 12 October 2000 in Aden, Yemen while docked, by an attack in which an apparently shaped charge of 200–300 kg in a boat was placed against the hull and detonated by suicide bombers, killing 17 crew members. The ship was repaired, and returned to duty in 2001.
In October 2011 it was announced that four Arleigh Burke-class destroyers would be forward-deployed in Europe to support the NATO missile defence system. The ships, to be based at Naval Station Rota, Spain, were named in February 2012, as Ross, Donald Cook,Porter and Carney.[50] By reducing travel times to station, this forward deployment will allow for six other destroyers to be shifted from the Atlantic in support of the Pivot to East Asia.[51] Russia has threatened to quit the New START treaty over this deployment, calling it a threat to their nuclear deterrent.[52]

Contractors[edit]

Ships in class[edit]

 Name  Number  Builder  Launched  Commissioned  Home port  Status 
Flight I
Arleigh BurkeDDG-51Bath Iron Works16 September 19894 July 1991Norfolk, VirginiaActive
BarryDDG-52Ingalls Shipbuilding8 June 199112 December 1992Norfolk, VirginiaActive
John Paul JonesDDG-53Bath Iron Works26 October 199118 December 1993San Diego, CaliforniaActive
Curtis WilburDDG-54Bath Iron Works16 May 199219 March 1994Yokosuka, JapanActive
StoutDDG-55Ingalls Shipbuilding16 October 199213 August 1994Norfolk, VirginiaActive
John S. McCainDDG-56Bath Iron Works26 September 19922 July 1994Yokosuka, JapanActive
MitscherDDG-57Ingalls Shipbuilding7 May 199310 December 1994Norfolk, VirginiaActive
LaboonDDG-58Bath Iron Works20 February 199318 March 1995Norfolk, VirginiaActive
RussellDDG-59Ingalls Shipbuilding20 October 199320 May 1995San Diego, CaliforniaActive
Paul HamiltonDDG-60Bath Iron Works24 July 199327 May 1995Pearl Harbor, HawaiiActive
RamageDDG-61Ingalls Shipbuilding11 February 199422 July 1995Norfolk, VirginiaActive
FitzgeraldDDG-62Bath Iron Works29 January 199414 October 1995Yokosuka, JapanActive
StethemDDG-63Ingalls Shipbuilding17 July 199421 October 1995Yokosuka, JapanActive
CarneyDDG-64Bath Iron Works23 July 199413 April 1996Mayport, FloridaActive
BenfoldDDG-65Ingalls Shipbuilding9 November 199430 March 1996San Diego, CaliforniaActive
GonzalezDDG-66Bath Iron Works18 February 199512 October 1996Norfolk, VirginiaActive
ColeDDG-67Ingalls Shipbuilding10 February 19958 June 1996Norfolk, VirginiaActive
The SullivansDDG-68Bath Iron Works12 August 199519 April 1997Mayport, FloridaActive
MiliusDDG-69Ingalls Shipbuilding1 August 199523 November 1996San Diego, CaliforniaActive
HopperDDG-70Bath Iron Works6 January 19966 September 1997Pearl Harbor, HawaiiActive
RossDDG-71Ingalls Shipbuilding22 March 199628 June 1997Norfolk, VirginiaActive
Flight II
MahanDDG-72Bath Iron Works29 June 19962 February 1998Norfolk, VirginiaActive
DecaturDDG-73Bath Iron Works10 November 199629 August 1998San Diego, CaliforniaActive
McFaulDDG-74Ingalls Shipbuilding18 January 199725 April 1998Norfolk, VirginiaActive
Donald CookDDG-75Bath Iron Works3 May 19974 December 1998Norfolk, VirginiaActive
HigginsDDG-76Bath Iron Works4 October 199724 April 1999San Diego, CaliforniaActive
O'KaneDDG-77Bath Iron Works28 March 199823 October 1999Pearl Harbor, HawaiiActive
PorterDDG-78Ingalls Shipbuilding12 November 199720 March 1999Norfolk, VirginiaActive
Flight IIA: 5"/54 variant
Oscar AustinDDG-79Bath Iron Works7 November 199819 August 2000Norfolk, VirginiaActive
RooseveltDDG-80Ingalls Shipbuilding10 January 199914 October 2000Mayport, FloridaActive
Flight IIA: 5"/62 variant
Winston S. ChurchillDDG-81Bath Iron Works17 April 199910 March 2001Norfolk, VirginiaActive
LassenDDG-82Ingalls Shipbuilding16 October 199921 April 2001Yokosuka, JapanActive
HowardDDG-83Bath Iron Works20 November 199920 October 2001San Diego, CaliforniaActive
BulkeleyDDG-84Ingalls Shipbuilding21 June 20008 December 2001Norfolk, VirginiaActive
Flight IIA: 5"/62, one 20mm CIWS variant[26]
McCampbellDDG-85Bath Iron Works2 July 200017 August 2002Yokosuka, JapanActive
ShoupDDG-86Ingalls Shipbuilding22 November 200022 June 2002Everett, WashingtonActive
MasonDDG-87Bath Iron Works23 June 200112 April 2003Norfolk, VirginiaActive
PrebleDDG-88Ingalls Shipbuilding1 June 20019 November 2002San Diego, CaliforniaActive
MustinDDG-89Ingalls Shipbuilding12 December 200126 July 2003Yokosuka, JapanActive
ChafeeDDG-90Bath Iron Works2 November 200218 October 2003Pearl Harbor, HawaiiActive
PinckneyDDG-91Ingalls Shipbuilding26 June 200229 May 2004San Diego, CaliforniaActive
MomsenDDG-92Bath Iron Works19 July 200328 August 2004Everett, WashingtonActive
Chung-HoonDDG-93Ingalls Shipbuilding15 December 200218 September 2004Pearl Harbor, HawaiiActive
NitzeDDG-94Bath Iron Works3 April 20045 March 2005Norfolk, VirginiaActive
James E. WilliamsDDG-95Ingalls Shipbuilding25 June 200311 December 2004Norfolk, VirginiaActive
BainbridgeDDG-96Bath Iron Works13 November 200412 November 2005Norfolk, VirginiaActive
HalseyDDG-97Ingalls Shipbuilding9 January 200430 July 2005Pearl Harbor, HawaiiActive
Forrest ShermanDDG-98Ingalls Shipbuilding2 October 200428 January 2006Norfolk, VirginiaActive
FarragutDDG-99Bath Iron Works23 July 200510 June 2006Mayport, FloridaActive
KiddDDG-100Ingalls Shipbuilding22 January 20059 June 2007San Diego, CaliforniaActive
GridleyDDG-101Bath Iron Works28 December 200510 February 2007San Diego, CaliforniaActive
SampsonDDG-102Bath Iron Works16 September 20063 November 2007San Diego, CaliforniaActive
TruxtunDDG-103Ingalls Shipbuilding2 June 200725 April 2009Norfolk, VirginiaActive
SterettDDG-104Bath Iron Works19 May 20079 August 2008San Diego, CaliforniaActive
DeweyDDG-105Ingalls Shipbuilding26 January 20086 March 2010San Diego, CaliforniaActive
StockdaleDDG-106Bath Iron Works10 May 200818 April 2009San Diego, CaliforniaActive
GravelyDDG-107Ingalls Shipbuilding30 March 200920 November 2010Norfolk, VirginiaActive
Wayne E. MeyerDDG-108Bath Iron Works18 October 200810 October 2009San Diego, CaliforniaActive
Jason DunhamDDG-109Bath Iron Works1 August 200913 November 2010Norfolk, VirginiaActive
William P. LawrenceDDG-110Ingalls Shipbuilding15 December 20094 June 2011San Diego, CaliforniaActive
SpruanceDDG-111Bath Iron Works6 June 20101 October 2011San Diego, CaliforniaActive
Michael MurphyDDG-112Bath Iron Works7 May 20116 October 2012Pearl Harbor, HawaiiActive
Flight IIA: Restart
John FinnDDG-113Ingalls ShipbuildingLaid down
Ralph JohnsonDDG-114Ingalls ShipbuildingConstruction on contract[53]
Rafael PeraltaDDG-115Bath Iron WorksConstruction on contract[54]
Flight IIA: Technology Insertion
Thomas HudnerDDG-116Bath Iron WorksConstruction on contract
Paul IgnatiusDDG-117Ingalls ShipbuildingContract awarded
Daniel InouyeDDG-118Bath Iron WorksContract awarded
'DDG-119Ingalls ShipbuildingHull contract awarded
'DDG-120Hull contract awarded
'DDG-121Hull contract awarded
'DDG-122Hull contract awarded
Flight III
'DDG-123Hull contract awarded
'DDG-124Hull contract awarded
'DDG-125Hull contract awarded
USS Michael Murphy was originally intended to be the last of the Arleigh Burke class. However with reduction of the Zumwalt-classproduction, the Navy requested new DDG-51-class ships.[55] Long-lead materials contracts were awarded to Northrop Grumman in December 2009 for DDG-113 and in April 2010 for DDG-114.[56] General Dynamics received a long-lead materials contract for DDG-115 in February 2010.[57][58] It is anticipated that in FY2012 or FY2013, the Navy will commence detailed work for a Flight III design and request 24 ships to be built from 2016 to 2031.[59] In May 2013, a total of 77 Burke-class ships was planned.[60] The Flight III variant is in the design phase as of 2013. In June 2013, the US Navy awarded $6.2 billion in destroyer contracts.[61] Up to 42 Flight III ships are expected to be procured by the Navy with the first ship entering service in 2023.[62]

Foreign interest[edit]

In May 2011 Saudi Arabia received a price estimate for the purchase of Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.[63]

Gallery[edit]

  • In this image ofUSS Fitzgerald (DDG-62), a Flight I ship, note TACTAS in center of fantail, lack of helicopter hangars, and design of stacks.
    •  
  • In this image ofUSS Mustin (DDG-89), a Flight IIA ship, note lack of TACTAS in center of fantail, aft helicopter hangars, Phalanx CIWS mount and different design of exhaust stacks.
    •  
  • Starboard side ofUSS Momsen (DDG-92), note torpedo tubes mounted on missile deck vs earlier mounted amidships. Also note superstructure changes to accommodate a Remote Minehunting System (RMS) holding bay.

See also[edit]

Portal iconUnited States Navy portal

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Jump up to:a b O'Rourke, Ronald (19 April 2011). "Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress". Congressional Research Service. Retrieved 23 October 2011. Since 1 and 2 ships are procured in alternate years and the "1 in a year" ships cost more, the fairest estimate of unit price comes from averaging three ships across two years. US$50-300m is spent on long lead-time items in the year before the main procurement of each ship. DDG-114 and DDG-115 together cost US$577.2m (FY2010) + US$2,922.2m (FY2011) = US$3,499.4m,(p25) and DDG-116 cost US$48m (FY2011) + US$1,980.7m (FY2012) = US$2,028.7m,(p12) making an average for the three ships of US$1,847.2m. DDG-113 cost US$2,234.4m.(p6)
  2. Jump up^ "DOD Announces Selected Acquisition Reports". United States Department of Defense Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs). 15 April 2011. Archived from the original on 29 May 2011. Retrieved 20 April 2011.
  3. Jump up^ "Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress". Congressional Research Service Reports for the People (Open CRS). 26 February 2010. Archived from the original on 23 April 2010. Retrieved 15 April 2010.
  4. Jump up^ "COMDESRON FIFTEEN". United States Navy. Retrieved 9 October 2010.
  5. Jump up^ "USS Lassen – About Us". United States Navy. Archivedfrom the original on 11 October 2010. Retrieved 9 October 2010.
  6. Jump up^ pamphlet 09-MDA-4298 (4 MAR 09).
  7. Jump up^ DDG-51 Arleigh Burke – Flight IIA
  8. Jump up^ http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=900&ct=4
  9. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i jhttp://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/navy/surfacewarfare/ddg51_arleighburke.html
  10. Jump up^ After 2-plus decades, Navy destroyer breaks record
  11. Jump up^ "Northrop Grumman-Built William P. Lawrence Christened; Legacy of Former POW Honored". Northrop Grumman, 17 April 2010.
  12. ^ Jump up to:a b http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/docs/ArleighB.htm
  13. Jump up^ "Navy Reverting To Steel In Shipbuilding After Cracks In Aluminum". The New York Times, 11 August 1987.
  14. Jump up^ Section F.7: Aluminum in warship construction. hazegray.org, 30 March 2000.
  15. Jump up^ Gardiner and Chumbley 1995, p.592.
  16. Jump up^ Baker 1998, p.1020.
  17. ^ Jump up to:a b Biddle, Wayne (28 February 1984). "The dust has settled on the Air Force's Great Engine". The New York Times.
  18. Jump up^ "Countermeasure washdown system test"
  19. Jump up^http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/rotary/sh60seahawk.html#lamps
  20. Jump up^ "Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) DDG 51"
  21. Jump up^ Sea-Based Ballistic Missile Defense – Background and Issues for Congress
  22. Jump up^ Galrahn (23 September 2009). "Fact Check – Technicals of AEGIS BMD". Information Dissemination. Retrieved 27 December 2011.
  23. ^ Jump up to:a b Contractors Agree on Deal to Build Stealth Destroyer. Navy Times, 8 April 2009.
  24. ^ Jump up to:a b "Maine shipbuilder gets Navy contract for a new destroyer".The New York Times. 3 April 1985.
  25. Jump up^ "History of Gibbs & Cox". Gibbs & Cox. January 2011. Retrieved 6 February 2011.
  26. ^ Jump up to:a b Analyst: DDGs without CIWS vulnerable. Navy Times. 16 September 2008.
  27. Jump up^ DN-SD-07-24674 (up to DDG-96)[dead link]
  28. Jump up^ Taken from the National Defense Authorization Act of 2007, pages 67–68[dead link]
  29. Jump up^ Taken from the National Defense Authorization Act of 2007, p. 193[dead link]
  30. Jump up^ Federation of American Scientists report on the MK 45 5-inch gun and ammunition payload for the US Arleigh Burke-class destroyers
  31. Jump up^ Navy ends ERGM funding Navy Times
  32. Jump up^ The US Navy – Fact File
  33. Jump up^ DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-Class Aegis Guided-Missile Destroyer Modernization
  34. Jump up^ "DRS Technologies Wins Contract to Continue its Support for Arleigh Burke-Class Guided Missile Destroyers Modernization Program". December 04, 2013.
  35. Jump up^ Greenert, Admiral Jonathan (18 September 2013). "Statement Before The House Armed Services Committee On Planning For Sequestration In FY 2014 And Perspectives Of The Military Services On The Strategic Choices And Management Review" (pdf). US House of Representatives. Retrieved 21 September 2013.
  36. Jump up^ "Boeing: Boeing Deploys Gigabit Ethernet Data Multiplex System on USS Spruance". Boeing.mediaroom.com. 24 October 2011. Retrieved 27 December 2011.
  37. Jump up^ "BAE to Modernize Up to 11 Norfolk-based Destroyers".Archived from the original on 7 August 2010. Retrieved 3 August 2010.
  38. Jump up^ Resource Implications of the Navy’s 2008 Shipbuilding Plan. Congressional Budget Office. 23 March 2007.
  39. Jump up^ "Missile Threat Helped Drive DDG Cut". Defense News. 4 August 2008. Retrieved 27 December 2011.
  40. Jump up^ Navy's future linked to flexible weapons: chief
  41. Jump up^ "Contracts for Wednesday, December 02, 2009". Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs), U.S. Department of Defense. 2 December 2009. Retrieved 23 October 2011. Contract N00024-10-C-2308.
  42. Jump up^ "DDG 51 Class Ship Construction Contract Awards Announced". Naval Sea Systems Command Office of Corporate Communication. 26 September 2011. Retrieved 23 October 2011.
  43. Jump up^ Lyle, Peter C. (2010). "DDG 51 Arleigh Burke Burke-Class Destroyer – New Construction Program" (PDF). Naval Sea Systems Command. p. 17. Retrieved 23 October 2011.Presentation summarising the restart program.
  44. Jump up^ RL32109 Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress. CRS, 26 February 2010.
  45. Jump up^ GAO-10-388SP, "Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs". GAO, 30 March 2010
  46. Jump up^ Fabey, Michael. "Potential DDG-51 Flight III Growth Alarms."Aviation Week, 10 June 2011.
  47. Jump up^ Freedberg, Sydney J. Jr. "Navy Bets On Arleigh Burkes To Sail Until 2072; 40 Years Afloat For Some." 5 October 2012.
  48. Jump up^ O'Rourke, Ronald. "CRS-RL32109 Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress." Congressional Research Service, 2 March 2012.
  49. Jump up^ "US proposes Flight IV Arleigh Burke and life extension for command ships". Jane's Information Group, 14 June 2011.
  50. Jump up^ Navy, Navy Names Forward Deployed Ships to Rota, Spain
  51. Jump up^ "NavWeek: Keeping Asian Waters Pacific."
  52. Jump up^ "Russia may quit START III after US deploys destroyer in Europe". voiceofrussia.com. The Voice of Russia. 2 February 2014. Retrieved 31 January 2014.
  53. Jump up^ "U.S. Navy Awards HII USD 697.6 Million Contract for New DDG 114 Destroyer". Shipbuilding Tribune. 27 September 2011. Archived from the original on 2 October 2011. Retrieved 2 October 2011.
  54. Jump up^ "GDBIW Wins USD 680 Million Contract for Construction of Two DDG 51 Destroyers (USA)". Shipbuilding Tribune. 28 September 2011. Archived from the original on 2 October 2011. Retrieved 2 October 2011.
  55. Jump up^ RL32109, Navy DDG-1000 and DDG-51 Destroyer Programs: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress. Congressional Research Service, 23 December 2009.
  56. Jump up^ "Northrop Grumman awarded $114M contract; Navy orders 30th DDG 51 ship", www.gulflive.com, 24 April 2010.
  57. Jump up^ "General Dynamics wins over $900 mln in Navy deals", Reuters, 26 February 2010.
  58. Jump up^ "BIW to purchase DDG 115 material", UPI.com, 2 March 2010.
  59. Jump up^ CRS RL32109 Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress 14 June 2010
  60. Jump up^ "Department of Defense Announces Selected Acquisition Report". United States Department of Defense Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs). 23 May 2013. Retrieved 3 June 2013.
  61. Jump up^ http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=5056
  62. Jump up^ http://www.usni.org/print/25780
  63. Jump up^ Cavas, Christopher P. "Saudi Arabia Mulling BMD-Capable Destroyers". Defense News, 13 June 2011.

References[edit]

  • Baker, A.D. The Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World 1998–1999. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press, 1998.ISBN 1-55750-111-4.
  • Gardiner, Robert and Chumbley, Stephen. Conway's All The World's Fighting Ships 1947–1995. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press, 1995. ISBN 1-55750-132-7.

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Arleigh Burke class destroyers.