Home » News & Analysis » Second Arleigh Burke Restart Destroyer Rafael Peralta to Commission on Saturday


Second Arleigh Burke Restart Destroyer Rafael Peralta to Commission on Saturday

Rafael Peralta (DDG-115) sets sail for the first time to conduct initial at-sea builder’s trials off the coast of Maine in 2016. US Navy Photo

A previous version of this post mislabeled the iteration of the Aegis combat system on Peralta. It will field Baseline 9D, not Baseline 9C.

Guided-missile destroyer Rafael Peralta (DDG-115) will formally join the Navy fleet following a commissioning ceremony on Saturday.

Rafael Peralta is the second of the restart Arleigh Burke-class destroyers to be commissioned and the first from General Dynamics Bath Iron Works. USS John Finn (DDG-113) was commissioned earlier in July.

Rafael Peralta is capable of engaging in air, surface, and subsurface battles simultaneously. The ship contains the latest iteration of the Navy’s Baseline 9D Aegis combat system, which includes modifications to the ship’s AN/SPY-1D(v) and associated processors. The ship can simultaneously track and fight aircraft, cruise missiles, and ballistic missile threats. 

Peralta honors Marine Corps Sgt. Rafael Peralta, who was posthumously awarded the Navy Cross for actions during combat operations in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Peralta is credited with saving the lives of fellow Marines during the second battle of Fallujah in 2004.

“This commissioning memorializes the life of Sgt. Rafael Peralta and marks the beginning of what will be decades of exceptional service for this ship,” said a statement release by Sean Stackley, acting secretary of the Navy. “During Operation Iraqi Freedom, Sgt. Peralta acted heroically and sacrificed himself for his fellow Marines. He was proud to be an American, proud to be a Marine and we are proud to welcome USS Rafael Peralta to the fleet. I have no doubt the men and women who serve aboard Peralta will continue his legacy of service.”

Gen. Robert Neller, commandant of the Marine Corps, will deliver the principal address during the commissioning ceremony at Naval Air Station North Island in San Diego. The ceremony will be streamed online at Navy Live

Bath Iron Works is currently building Burke guided missile destroyers Thomas Hudner (DDG-116), Daniel Inouye (DDG-118) and Carl M. Levin (DDG-120). Bath is also building Zumwalt-class guided missile destroyers Michael Monsoor (DDG-1001) and Lyndon B. Johnson (DDG-1002).

  • Bailey Zhang

    “The ship contains the latest iteration of the Navy’s Baseline 9C Aegis combat system, which includes modifications to the ship’s AN/SPY-1D(v) and associated processors.”
    I am sure that DDG 115 is not using Baseline 9.C1, it’s Baseline 9.D1.
    9.C is for upgraded old ships, 9.D is for the new ships.

  • FelixA9

    Already looks old compared to the new Chinese Type 55.

    • DaSaint

      I’ll take the content, not the context, until proven otherwise.

      That said, while the Flight III Burkes will be significant improvements for the fleet, it is important to get the new FFG(X) right, and give it enough affordable capability (read $1 Billion) to be a difference-maker. Further, to maximize numbers, it should be conceived of as a Government-owned design, and built in quantity (15 – 30) in a highly modular format, so that yards from all over the country (Vigor, Fincantwahatever, Eastern, Ingalls, Bath, NASSCO, Bollinger, Philly, and Derecktor) can produce modules for assembly in 3 yards, one on each coast.

      • Frank Langham

        A littoral capable platform cannot prosecute blue-water combat like a purpose-designed hull can and, conversely, any ship designed for open-seas combat missions would suck for littoral domains and missions. This is the folly of the FFGx competition. … Furthermore, why bottleneck our combined production capacity at a time when exponential expansion (as rapid as is feasible) has been unanimously recommended by a half-dozen independent studies ? … We should exploit and leverage all relevant designs for the domains and for the missions which each performs best. … We have lots of OHPs in mothballs … We have NSCs and two littoral designs. … Neither should we ignore (even) commercial conversions, for less risky and more mundane utility missions. A set of golf clubs does not consist of a dozen #7 IRONS … Each hole presents unique challenges.
        … We should augment our capacity from any source that can provide an effective solution at a competitive cost. … “One size fits all” will choke our production capacity and our pool of contractors and skilled labor.

        • DaSaint

          Philosophically, you’re probably correct. And the LCS will still have a role to play, as will the upgraded LCS. The Coast Guard will do what they can with NSC and OPCs. But there isn’t time for research, analysis and debate for commercial conversions and their applicability, given the debate over LCS.

          Arguably, there is only room for one FFG hull form, whatever it may be. The two issues will be 1) capability (current and future) vs price, and 2) who gets to provide it, also known as the industrial base question.

          Do we shut down the LCS yards in Wisconsin and Alabama? Not politically tenable in this administration. Or do we keep those running with their existing new-build workload to 2020 or 2022, then keep them busy for another 10 years doing the modifications necessary to upgrade the LCS fleet?

          Do the rich get richer, with Ingalls producing a variant of the NSC to add to their amphibious ship monopoly? Or do we risk a new combatant at a yard that has never done combatants such as NASSCO or AckerPhilly, or hasn’t built one in years, such as Vigor, Seattle (formerly Todd, Seattle)?

          These are the questions – in addition to cost and capability – that will affect the final decision.

          • Frank Langham

            No time?… IMO, we are just waking up to the fact that we are at war and that the war is half over. ..
            No time? … If we keep doing the same things in the same way as we have been then, yes, there is no time. I do believe that a failure to expand and invigorate our base capacity will result in total loss. … China is not hobbled by the same bureaucratic or political obstacles (such as bi-partisan haggling, dragging processes and inflated contracts) … China is in full industrial swing and they are cranking out combatants like sugar-cookies. … We are not the sleeping giant that we once were … We are in the coma ward, circling the drain. …
            … Alright, that may be a bit dramatic but it is closer to the truth than most of Congress and the Brass are willing to admit.

        • Rocco

          Kudos nicely said!!

        • DaSaint

          I think there are sufficient ‘Littoral capable platforms’ with the 30 odd Freedom and Independence class budgeted already. If the FFG can’t prosecute as close in, then so be it. Littoral operations seemed the most pressing 10+ years ago, but open ocean combat is more likely now, so a more blue-water oriented FFG capable of sailing the seven seas and not overheating like the RN warships do, would be welcome.

      • Frank Langham

        “””” Further, to maximize numbers, it should be conceived of as a Government-owned design, and built in quantity (15 – 30) in a highly modular format, so that yards from all over the country (Vigor, Fincantwahatever, Eastern, Ingalls, Bath, NASSCO, Bollinger, Philly, and Derecktor) can produce modules for assembly in 3 yards, one on each coast “”””
        (End awesome quote).
        … Agreed, … Especially because it is important to expand and invigorate our entire industrial base and to exploit and to leverage all of our potential capacity and all available skilled labor … Anything less is a conscious choice to jam clogged production pipelines and regional labor unions which are already under-manned and over-committed.

    • Frank Langham

      A sparkly tutu and a rein stone tiara do not, a prima ballerina, make.

      • DaSaint

        Nice.

  • Ed L

    needs more guns like a twin 5 inch mount forward. four 7.62 machine guns, four 50 cal machine guns and 4 more mounts in the 20mm to 30mm range plus I like a 76mm cannons mounted on each side of the stack

    • FelixA9

      A shame it will never be able to handle a railgun and they cancelled the only class that would.

      • Frank Langham

        Can we take the next two Zumwalts out of your retirement pension ?

        • FelixA9

          I don’t work for the .gov so nice try. We could take them out of Obamacare with my blessing though.

      • Rocco

        Who cares about the rail gun!!

        • FelixA9

          The USN obviously. Haven’t you been paying attention?

  • Maxine

    Is that actually the picture of the ship? Looks antiquated by today’s standards – very 1980s. I see they still haven’t been able to innovate anything better than the ancient Aegis missile system either. I think its time for a rethink on the approach to this – can’t keep on evolving something which is fundamentally out of date.

    • FelixA9

      The Flight III Burkes are the equivalent of the “Silent Hornet” – a lame attempt to keep an outdated design relevant.

    • wilkinak

      You mean like DDG 1000?

  • xxnavyguy445

    Welcome to the fleet, USS Rafael Peralta (DDG-115) May you have fair winds and following seas.

  • publius_maximus_III

    Good, good, good. More destroyers, more destroyers, more Arleigh Burke DDG-51 Flight III destroyers.

  • Ed L

    I wish there was a like button on these comments

  • Ed L

    I read somewhere the manning levels of the Burke are around 275. but wasn’t it originally supposed to be around 330. Read that in a paper
    Projected manpower requirements of the next generation U.S. Navy destroyer
    By Coe, James B it was written in 1995