DDG-51 Arleigh Burke Flight III (US Navy)

[r3mu511]

(for posts related to the newest flight of the DDG-51 class, starting with info on it's most significant design difference from the previous flight: the SPY-6 AMDR, data recovered from old forum post)

Just how good will the new SPY-6 (AMDR) on the DDG-51 Flight III be?

(TLDR version)

AMDR free-space range (vs. 1 sqm rcs target) is on the order of ~1,750 km, by comparison spy-1d(v) free-space range is on the order of ~740 km...

put in perspective, the 14-foot diameter shipborne AMDR will give around half the performance of the original, land-based, building sized, 90-foot ballistic missile defense PAVE PAWS phased arrays...

------------------------------

(full version)

the stated design parameters for AMDR (air and missile defense radar) to be deployed on the flight-3 arleigh burke destroyers (currently intended for the 3rd ship procured in fy16, ie. ddg-127*), and given the designation spy-6, are for an approx 14-foot diameter active array w/ a sensitivity improvement over the current spy-1d(v) of +15 dB... this means a sensitivity improvement of approx ~31.6x better than spy-1d(v)... in range performance terms this corresponds to an approx ~2.4x greater range (due to the 1/4th-power relationship of sensitivity to range)...

and just what would this ~2.4x range improvement work out to? well in the mar-2004 issue of the "US Field Artillery" magazine, an article on CRAM written by CWO3 J.Robinson titled "Employing the Spy-1D Radar", had this to say on the spy-1d(v) performance: "it also can track golf ball sized targets at ranges in excess of 165 km"... so let's scale this up to it's performance vs a 1 sq-m rcs target...

using the method of computation utilized by mostlymissiledefense.com (a site which specializes in ballistic missile defense topics), because a golf ball has a diameter of around ~0.0427 m, which in comparison to the s-band spy-1d(v)'s wavelength on the order of 0.1 m (ie. assuming a freq of around 3 GHz, or around center s-band), this results in a ratio of object diameter to wavelength of around ~0.427, which means the RF interaction with the object is in the Mie or resonance region...

since this is in the Mie/resonance region, the rcs is not exactly the same as the rcs in the optical region (which in the physical optics approximation would just be on the order of pi*radius^2)... so instead (as based again on the computations used in mostlymissiledefense.com) we use the NASA size estimation model as found in the "Haystack and HAX Radar Measurements of Orbital Debris Environment" (NASA 2003) paper, which results in an rcs of approx ~0.0025 sqm...

so taking this back to the spy-1d(v), we now have a range perf of ~165 km vs. a ~0.0025 sqm rcs target... scaling this up to 1 sqm and using the 1/4th power relationship of rcs to range, we thus get a free-space range perf of ~737.9 km vs. 1 sqm rcs...

since the AMDR is going to be ~31.6x more sensitive than the spy-1d, which corresponds to a ~2.4x better range performance, then the free-space range of the AMDR is approx ~1749.8 km vs. 1 sqm rcs...

to put that into perspective, the original fps-115 PAVE PAWS ballistic missile defense phased arrays are 90-102 foot diameter arrays, housed in buildings, with a claimed range of ~5550 km vs. ballistic missile targets of 10 sqm rcs... scaling this down to 1 sqm rcs targets results in a range performance of ~3121 km...

by comparison, the AMDR is a 14-foot array, housed in the superstructure of a ship, and yet will get a little over half the performance of those building-sized PAVE PAWS arrays...

------------------------------

*the first 2 ships procured in fy16 are the flight-2a ddg-123 and -124, so it would seem the third ship (ie. the first flight-3 variant) should be -125, but due to the multi-ship block buy executed by the USN, -125 and -126 are already entered into the USN procurement system as fy17 ships... thus when the US congress funded a third ship for fy16 this would then get the next available hull number, hence ddg-127, (ref: may-2016 presentation by USN PM for ddg-51 program, Capt. Vandroff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJ3iZHLFtWU)

[r3mu511]

USNI article containing Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) documents for modifications required for DDG-51 Flight III to support installation of AMDR-S/SPY-6:

https://news.usni.org/2015/03/04/document-navy-report-to-congress-on-flight-iii-destroyers

[r3mu511]

The Trump Effect

The following USNI article outlines Trump's stand on maritime security as well as those of his pick for the next Secretary of the Navy, Rep. Randy Forbes:

"What Trump’s Team Has Said About Maritime Security" https://news.usni.org/2016/11/10/trump_maritime_security_22457

There are several interesting points about China and the South China Seam, but in the context of this thread on the Flight III DDGs the relevant quotes are (emphasis mine):

As for the Navy, Trump said in the speech that he wants a 350-ship Navy, compared to today’s stated goal of 308 – which is set to increase when the Navy releases an updated Force Structure Assessment later this year. That large fleet would emphasize ballistic missile defense.

Trump also said he would “procure additional modern destroyers that are designed to handle the missile defense mission in the coming years.”

Currently the Navy plan is for a 308-ship navy with 88 large surface combatants, and to procure 27 Flight III ships at a rate of 2 per year from FY2017 to FY2029 (plus the one ship in FY2016, ie. the 3rd ship for 2016 with the first two being Flight IIA variants).

If Trump pushes through with his statements we may be seeing a higher procurement rate for Flight III ships in the coming fiscal years.

[r3mu511]

Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Sean Stackley on increasing the acquisition of Arleigh Burke destroyers to meet the stated 350-ship goal of Trump:

https://news.usni.org/2016/12/01/stackley-would-increase-ssn-ddg-amphib-production-rate-to-reach-350-ship-navy

...
The next step in building a bigger fleet is increasing the rate of production of ship classes currently being built – specifically, Virginia-class attack submarines, Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and amphibious ships.
...
Surface combatants – right now we’re building surface combatants at a rate that, in the long term, results in dropping off in terms of total number of large surface combatants because we built at such a high rate during the Reagan buildup years; if we stay at two per year, we’re going to start settling down to a 60 to 70 number of large surface combatants, which won’t meet our operational requirements.
...

The statement in above bold indicates that if Trump pushes through with his plan for a 350-ship Navy the current 2-per-year acquisition for Flight III Burkes (for a total of 27, including the single ship procured in the first fiscal year) may be increased to a higher acquisition rate.

[r3mu511]

fy2017 budget CR (continuing resolution) effect on the first Flight III, AMDR/SPY-6 equipped Arleigh Burke destroyer:

https://news.usni.org/2016/12/08/navy-encouraging-program-offices-upfront-continuing-resolution-impacts

... in FY 2016 Congress wanted to help the Navy buy three Arleigh Burke-class destroyers instead of the planned two. However, due to spending caps the lawmakers couldn’t find the full sum of money. Instead, they allotted about a billion dollars and gave permission to incrementally pay for the ship, with the idea being that the remainder of the money would be allocated in FY 2017. When it came time to craft the FY 2017 defense and spending bills, however, spending caps prevented the Senate and House armed services committees from being able to squeeze the remaining $433 million into their defense bill, so instead they gave only $50 million.

"The $50 million is meant to show our continued commitment to the third destroyer"...

the USN intends for the last ship procured in fy2016 to be the first Flight III variant, hence this was originally meant to be the 2nd ship for fy2016 (ie. DDG-124)... when Congress supplied partial funding in fy2016 for a third ship the USN then shifted the first Flight III build to what would be the 3rd ship (ie. DDG-127, note: hull nos. -125 and -126 were already alloted for fy2017 in the USN procurement system hence the next unassigned hull no. was used for the 3rd ship added in fy2016)...

now if the fy2017 continuing resolutions do not result in complete funding for this third ship the USN will likely resort back to it's original plan with DDG-124 (ie. 2nd ship in fy2016) built as the Flight III variant...

[r3mu511]

US Navy 2016 Force Structure Assessment adds 16 large surface combatants to the fleet:

https://news.usni.org/2016/12/16/navy-wants-grow-fleet-355-ships-47-hull-increase-previous-goal


https://news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/FSA_Executive-Summary.pdf

it remains to be seen how this will be distributed between the Flight III ships (currently planned for 27, procured from fy2016 to fy2029) and the future surface combatant to be procured starting in fy2030...

[r3mu511]

FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)

https://news.usni.org/2016/12/22/fy-2017-national-defense-authorization-act

pg. 8 in the pdf, under "Ship Procurement": as expected, despite the $433M  the House allocated for the 3rd FY16 DDG-51 destroyer (ie. first Flight-III variant, partially funded with $1B in the FY16 budget), it was the Senate version allocating only $50M which surfaced in the combined House-Senate budget...

with incomplete funding for the 3rd FY16 destroyer, it remains to be seen whether the US Navy will still pursue the 3rd ship (DDG-127) to be the first Flight-III (AMDR/SPY-6) variant, or will switch back to the original plan for the 2nd FY16 destroyer (DDG-124) to be the first Flight-III ship...

[Ayoshi]

SNA 2017: Huntington Ingalls Industries Unveils Scale Model of DDG 51 Flight III Design | navy recognition -  21 January 2017


DDG 51 Flight III scale model on HII stand at SNA 2017

[r3mu511]

the SPY-6(V) AMDR (Air and Missile Defense Radar) engineering and development model (EDM) prototype recently conducted a ballistic missile tracking test at the PMRF (Pacific Missile Range Facility) in Hawaii:

http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/2017-03-31-Raytheons-Air-Missile-Defense-Radar-successfully-executes-first-ballistic-missile-test

the AMDR is the next generation AESA radar which will equip the USN DDG-51 Flight III destroyers, and will provide a sensitivity which is nearly 32 times greater than the current SPY-1D(V) on Flight IIA ships... see this post for a discussion on the AMDR's capability...

[r3mu511]

1st Flight-III ship procurement pushed to fy17 with Huntington Ingalls set to build the first in class ship (previously Bath Iron Works was slated to build the first ship to be procured in fy16)...

https://news.usni.org/2017/05/31/navy-pushes-back-schedule-upgraded-destroyer-program-hii-set-build-first-flight-iii

The Navy has reached a tentative agreement with Huntington Ingalls Industries for the shipbuilder to build the first Flight III Arleigh Burke guided-missile destroyer (DDG-51) in its Mississippi yard, the Navy’s acting acquisition chief Allison Stiller told a House Armed Services panel last week.
...
“We have a handshake agreement with Huntington Ingalls to introduce the Flight III capability on their FY ’17 ship,” Stiller told the House Armed Services seapower and projection forces subcommittee in a May 24 hearing.

this will make for a rather interesting situation in terms of ship numbering as it was originally intended that the first Flight-III ship would be procured in fy16 and be numbered as DDG-127 (with the other two ships procured in fy16 being Flight-IIA ships numbered DDG-123 and DDG-124)...

now with this new development for Flight-III procurement in fy17, if a third ship is still procured in fy16 but in a Flight-IIA configuration then this would mean DDG-123, DDG-124, and DDG-127 would be Flight-IIA ships, while DDG-125 and DDG-126 would be Flight-III ships...

all this number-merry-go-round due to the way the USN's procurement system handles multi-year contract block buys (ie. 14 ships up to DDG-126 were already in the system prior to Congress allocating initial funding  for a third ship for fy16)... maybe fudging with their ERP software's database to renumber the ships is too much of a headache for them, but I really wish they'ld just "bump" the hull numbers downwards so it looks nice and neat, lol...

[Ayoshi]

HII Awarded Contract to Build First Flight III Burke-class Destroyer Jack H. Lucas DDG 125 | Navy Recognition - 8 June 2017

DDG 51 Flight III will incorporate the new Advanced Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) that will replace the existing SPY-1 radar installed on the previous DDG 51 ships. To support the new Flight III systems, the installed power and cooling will be increased accordingly.

DDG 125 is the first ship named for Capt. Jack H. Lucas, who, at the age of 14, forged his mother’s signature to join the U.S. Marine Corps Reserves during World War II. Lucas, then a private first class in the Marine Corps, turned 17 just five days before the U.S. invasion of Iwo Jima and stowed away on USS Deuel (APA 160) to fight in the campaign. During a close firefight with Japanese forces, Lucas saved the lives of three fellow Marines when, after two enemy hand-grenades were thrown into a U.S. trench, he placed himself on one grenade while simultaneously pulling the other under his body. One of the grenades did not explode; the other exploded but only injured Lucas.

Lucas is the youngest Marine and the youngest service member in World War II to receive the Medal of Honor.

[Ayoshi]

US Navy Awards Bath Iron Works Funding for Two Flight III DDG 51-Class Destroyers | Navy Recognition - 29 September 2017

The U.S. Navy has awarded General Dynamics Bath Iron Works funding for the planning and construction of two Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, DDG 126 and DDG 127. The contract modification fully funds the two ships. The contract modification includes funding for the “Flight III” upgrades to the Arleigh Burke-class (DDG 51) guided missile destroyer on DDG 126.

DDG 126 was awarded under the contract that was part of a multi-year competition for DDG 51-class destroyers in 2013. DDG 127 was approved by Congress under separate legislation.

SNA 2017 Surface Navy Association Day 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=77&v=IVH6ce_biJ4

[Ayoshi]

GE Ships LM2500 Marine Gas Turbine for 1st Flight III DDG 51 Destroyer | Navy Recognition - 25 January 2018

Shipbuilder Huntington Ingalls Industries’ Ingalls Shipbuilding division will construct this new destroyer with U.S. Navy Flight III upgrades incorporated. Each DDG destroyer features four GE LM2500 marine gas turbines in a COmbined Gas turbine And Gas turbine (COGAG) configuration.

< snipped >

Ingalls has delivered 30 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers to the U.S. Navy, most recently the Ralph Johnson (DDG 114) on November 15. John Finn (DDG 113) was commissioned on July 15, 2017, in Pearl Harbor. Other destroyers currently under construction at Ingalls include Paul Ignatius (DDG 117), Delbert D. Black (DDG 119), Frank E. Petersen Jr. (DDG 121) and Lenah H. Sutcliffe Higbee (DDG 123).

Including the DDG 51 program, GE has delivered 750 gas turbines to the U.S. Navy, its largest marine engine customer. The LM2500 is the most reliable gas turbine in the market with over 15 million hours in marine applications as well as another 70 million hours in industrial applications. A solid customer base that includes the U.S. Navy and 34 other navies worldwide allows GE to maintain a skilled American workforce as well as a robust inventory of engines, parts and spares.

[Ayoshi]

U.S. Navy Orders Ten DDG 51 Flight III Destroyers From BIW and HII | Navy Recognition - 02 October 2018

The U.S. Navy awarded two contracts for the DDG 51 fiscal years (FY) 2018 - 2022 multiyear procurement (MYP) for DDG 51 Arleigh Burke class destroyers. Four DDG 51 Flight III were ordered from General Dynamics Bath Iron Works and six similar destroyer were ordered from Huntington Ingalls Industries.

< snipped >

General Dynamics Bath Iron Works was awarded a $3,904,735,559 fixed-price incentive firm target (FPIF) contract for the design and construction of four DDG 51 class ships, four in FY 2019-2022.

Huntington Ingalls Industries was awarded a $5,104,668,778 fixed-price-incentive firm target (FPIF) contract for the design and construction of six DDG 51 class ships, six in FY 2018-2022.

These multiyear procurement awards are for a total of 10 MYP ships. Additionally, each shipbuilder’s contract contains options for additional ships in FY18/19/20/21/22, providing the Navy and/or Congress flexibility to increase DDG 51 build rates above the 10 MYP ships in the Navy’s FY 2018 budget request, if appropriated.