Home » Budget Industry » DDG-51 Flight III Design Efforts Nearly Complete; Radar, Power Systems Testing in 2018


DDG-51 Flight III Design Efforts Nearly Complete; Radar, Power Systems Testing in 2018

A crane lifts the Air and Missile Defense Radar into place for its upcoming tests at the U.S. Navy Pacific Missile Range Facility, in June 2016. Raytheon photo.

WASHINGTON NAVY YARD – The Arleigh Burke-class destroyer program office has completed 3D modeling of its Flight III design upgrade and will spend 2018 testing major components of the new configuration, the program manager told USNI News.

Capt. Casey Moton said the program office has been working all year on Flight III detail design, with the most critical piece being the 3D modeling of the new design – a process that both builders, Bath Iron Works and Ingalls Shipbuilding, had to undertake separately. Both yards recently completed this process, meeting the long-standing December 2017 goal for this milestone, Moton told USNI News in a Dec. 14 interview.

The Flight III design revolves around the addition of the AN/SPY-6(V) Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR), with upgrades to the power and other systems to support the much more powerful radar. About 45 percent of the ship’s drawings zones were affected by the Flight III upgrade, Moton said.

With the 3D modeling complete, the two yards will now go through a “final functional design” effort before fabrication of the Flight III ships can start, to verify that the design changes in the upgrade didn’t unintentionally create any further system-level adjustments that need to be made – additional fire main requirements, for example. Moton said that should wrap up by May, just in time for Ingalls’ planned start of fabrication on its first Flight III hull, DDG-125.

AMDR testing has been going well, Moton said, with all the cooling and power requirements holding steady and no signs that the radar would require any further changes to the ship design. The radar will move to Lockheed Martin’s Aegis Combat System testing facility in Moorestown, N.J., later this fiscal year to be married up with the combat system hardware for integration. Testing will take place in Moorestown, beginning with site activation in Fiscal Year 2019 and spanning several years, Moton said, but is expected to be completed before the radar and combat system have to be installed on the first Flight III ship and prepared for combat system light-off.

As a risk-reduction measure, while the radar itself was testing the transmitting radius in Hawaii, engineers in Moorestown were already working on integrating the back end of the radar system – the electronic cabinets and other components – with Aegis hardware. Some integration issues were identified and are being fixed now, Moton said, noting that identifying those issues as early as possible was the point of this Combat Systems Interface Support Equipment Testing.

The crew of the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Rafael Peralta (DDG 115) mans the ship during its commissioning ceremony at Naval Air Station North Island in San Diego, Calif., on July 29, 2017. Rafael Peralta honors Marine Corps Sgt. Rafael Peralta, who was posthumously awarded the Navy Cross for actions during Operation Iraqi Freedom. US Navy photo.

The AMDR will also require a new electrical plant for the ship, which Moton said is also performing well in testing. A power conditioning module, which converts the new generators’ 4,160-volt AC power into 1,000-volt DC power, is “nearing completion of testing” with builder Leonardo DRS and should ship to the Land-Based Engineering Site in Philadelphia next month for further testing. The 4,160-volt generators, which were developed for the DDG-1000 program, should also ship to the Philly test site next month. As the remaining power system equipment arrives there early in 2018, the power system will be able to light off in FY 2019.

“The Flight III technical piece is proceeding on schedule, and we haven’t had any major issues,” Moton said.
“Doesn’t mean we haven’t had any issues, but we haven’t had any major issues. Obviously the big piece, a huge step in risk reduction will be when we first light everything off in Moorestown and when we first light everything off in Philadelphia.”

Moton acknowledged the importance of those two light-off dates, but he said he is already comfortable with the maturity of the Flight III design and the progress in developing and testing the radar and electrical plant. Much has been made of the maturity of the design – both because risk was a major factor in contract negotiations with both yards as the Navy looked to insert the Flight III design into an existing multiyear procurement contract, and because lawmakers on the Hill worried that the mid-contract upgrade wouldn’t allow them sufficient oversight opportunities – but Moton said previous milestones have assured him that the program office is on a path to success with this capability upgrade.

“I don’t want to somehow take away from the fact that when we light everything off at Moorestown and Philadelphia, that’s going to be a big deal for us to get through that,” Moton told USNI News.
“But from an individual component level, when the Navy submitted its [President’s Budget 2018] request, or shortly after that, we submitted a multiyear request for Fiscal 18 to 22, and part of the multiyear request was the Navy certifying a stable design. That had oversight at the [assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition] level and at the [under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics] level. We’ve got to sometimes keep in perspective that on a new ship class … typically detail design doesn’t start until after you’ve awarded a contract to a shipbuilder. So we were already sort of well ahead of that game on Flight III.”

Asked when he could confidently say the risk in the upgrade has been managed, Moton replied, “we think that we’re already there.”

Ingalls Shipbuilding completed builder’s sea trials for Ralph Johnson (DDG 114). The Arleigh Burke (DDG 51) destroyer spent more than three days in the Gulf of Mexico testing the ship’s main propulsion, combat and other ship systems. Huntington Ingalls Industries photo.

As the detail design and the component testing progressed throughout 2017, so did contract negotiations with Bath Iron Works and Ingalls Shipbuilding for the mid-contract Flight III upgrade. The Navy issued its request for proposals in May 2016, and negotiations lasted more than a year – Ingalls signed a contract in June 2017 and Bath in October 2017.

“If you look at those timelines, you probably know it was a robust discussion. But we were able to get the Flight IIIs awarded within our budget,” Moton said.
“We had a lot of discussions with both shipbuilders about risk-sharing on the contract. The Navy wanted to do a fixed-price contract – now, fixed-price doesn’t mean firm fixed-price; fixed-price incentive, on a shareline, government shares the risk and the contractor shares the risk. It’s probably not much of a secret that there were pretty healthy discussions with both shipbuilders about what that risk-sharing should be, so it took a while.”

Moton noted that Ingalls’ start of fabrication date of May 2018 hasn’t changed despite the lengthy contract negotiations, in part because the Navy provided the shipyard long lead time material and long lead time engineering funding to keep DDG-125 on track.

Talks with Bath Iron Works had the added complication of a second ship – whereas the Navy only wanted Ingalls to change its one FY 2017 ship to the Flight III design, Bath had both a 2017 ship and an additional hull Congress incrementally funded in 2016 and 2017. Ultimately BIW and the Navy agreed to keep that incrementally funded ship in the older Flight IIA configuration.

So, DDGs 125 and 126 will be Flight III, 127 will be a Flight IIA ship, and then 128 and beyond will fall in the next multiyear contract that will be all Flight III ships.

“In the end, we reached a pretty good deal with Bath in the sense that the extra Flight IIA ship gives them one more ship to make sure their workload is stabilized as they start to tail off DDG-1000 construction,” Moton said.
“And it also frankly worked to give them some additional time before they start cutting steel on Flight III, so in the end it worked out, it worked out well.”

Overall, Moton said he’s pleased to have both yards on contract for Flight III construction ahead of negotiations for the next multiyear procurement contract.

“I’d like to think we did a good job working together with both yards to get both sides comfortable with the risk, and the bottom line is we were able to reach an agreement with both shipbuilders for Flight III and contractually on how to handle that risk,” Moton said.
“It’s a big change, but the desire to do that was driven by the operational need. … World events were driving the desire to get this radar out there as quickly as possible. I don’t need to name what those world events are.”

  • ElmCityAle

    Why haven’t the Flight IIA restart ships been equipped with SeaRAM instead of the legacy 20mm gun system for CIWS? Seems like a relatively simple upgrade that could have been incorporated.

    • delta9991

      Indeed. Id like to see a setup similar to the Rota based DDGs with the 20mm on the front and SeaRAM on the back for all DDGs. The only thing I can think is cost and availability. An 11 cell RAM is great, but is a bit pricey to buy the missiles and backups especially for every DDG. In addition, Raytheon is producing quite a few systems between the LCS, Ford/Nimitz, and foreign operators so I wonder if they even have spare capacity.

    • Ed L

      The searam idea sounds great. How about stinger man pad set up too. Now before anyone says anything about launching from the shoulder. A gator I was on in the early 80’s showed how hard it was remaining balance on a rolling deck while trying to get even a lock on let alone a launching.

      • El Kabong

        There have been deck mounts for MANPADS for quite a few years.

    • Old Salt

      Currently, they have 3 layers of defense, SM-6/3/2ER, ESSM, and Phalanx. Ideally, as you suggest, adding a SeaRam mount on the front and keeping the Phalnx on the stern would give them four active layers of defensem since the SeaRam has a bit longer range than the Phalanx 20mm gun (of course this is not including the SPY radar itself, decoys, SLQ-32 active jamming, and Nuklas). But don’t let the Fleet Admiral hear, all he’s say is the the SeaRam, aka LCS style, is all you need.

      • Duane

        The LCS also has twin Mk 46 30mm high speed gun mounts as an additional layer of close in defense, beyond SeaRam, and beyond the Mk 110 57mm gun which is an excellent anti-air gun (derived from the old 40mm Bofors AA guns), and beyond the 24-cell Hellfire Longbow which is also an anti-air as well as anti-surface defense weapon system. Plus the embarked/integrated aircraft (MH-60R and MQ-8B and C) range much further out (to 100+ miles) with their latest gen synthetic aperture look down AESA radars to detect incoming ASCMs as well as the ships that fire them, and can launch Hellfire Longbows at the ASCM as well.

        Plenty of layers for air defense starting at 9 miles (and far beyond) and moving in to 2 miles.

        • Ken N

          Hellfires might be usable against helicopters or drones but I seriously doubt a hellfire would be useful against an ASCM.

          • Secundius

            In 24 May 2001, a Cessna 172 was Shot Down by a Israeli AH-64A using a Hellfire missile…

          • WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot

            A very low speed, none-manuvering, and easy to kill target-very impressive indeed. So impressive I think the Hellfire can replace the SM-2/3/6 family

          • Secundius

            WWII Physics, Objective ISN’T to HIT Target, but IMPEDE It. To the Point where the Threat is no longer a THREAT…

          • OS1 retired

            yep, it’s a good thing the Chinese Navy is only armed with Cessna 172’s, proving that the LCS can take care of itself, or the LCS would be in a world or hurt….oh wait a sec

          • Secundius

            With “Hellfire” by itself, the Hellfire Missile has a Small Window of Opportunity to Engage the Target Threat. But with a AN/APG-78 “Longbow” Radar with Fire Control System within the system would be Constantly upgrading Course Correction to a point if Interception. Israel DIDN’T have the Longbow Hellfire in 2001. So it was Relative “Child’s Play” for a Supersonic Attack Missile to Engage a Threat Target flying at less than 200mph. The 2012 Axiom comes to mind, “If you’re not cheating, you’re not trying hard enough”…

          • Duane

            Actually, the Hellfires most certainly can take out an incoming ASCM, they have the seeker necessary to do it – a mm wave radar and a semi-active laser (laser designation can come from the ship or from any of its embarked aircraft which also carry laser designators) – and they are supersonic, significantly faster than subsonic ASCMs. They would not work so well against supersonic ASCMs, but those are relatively few in number, and can be handled easily by SeaRam. The only real restriction on the Hellfire Longbows is their relatively short range of 5.5 nm. But, as part of a layered defense system that integrated with the LCS’s firecontrol system, they are very useful.

            Don’t forget also that the LCS also includes a countermeasures system to draw off incoming ASCMs. And it’s multimodal (surface search plus volume air search) radar is perfectly capable of picking up incoming ASCMs within the horizon – same as any other ship including AEGIS DDGs and CGs do … the AEGIS system’s advantage is detecting and processing fire control data long range high altitude attackers like supersonic fighters, high altitude cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles. Against wave skimming ASCMs, AEGIS is still limited to within the horizon sensing. It’s physics.

          • BlueSky47

            again, Fleet Admiral leaves out all of the testing which proves otherwise.

          • Duane

            State your proof of “otherwise”.

            Hellfires are proven against aircraft within their effective range of 5.5 nm. It’s a close in system proven for decades against a wide variety of aircraft, surface craft, and ground targets, including moving targets in all weather conditions. For decades in actual battle.

          • WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot

            Is this guy on crack or something? He’s saying the Hellfire can take down a Mach 2+ anti ship missile. Funnier still, he says the LCS radar and systems are better and more powerful than the Aegis SPY system. I want some the stuff he’s been snorting

          • Secundius

            What the Guidance System of the “Longbow Hellfire”? Self Guidance or Assisted Guidance…

          • Duane

            No – I said hellfires will do fine on subsonic ASCMs within their range (5.5 nm), which subsonics account for most ASCMs … of which 100% spend either all or most of their time just above wavetop at subsonic speeds. A small number like the Russian Klub can go supersonic only in the terminal phase, where they shoot up high, expose their butts to radar and make themselves easy-peasy targets for supersonic SeaRam and ESSM. Subsonic ASCMs are far more stealthy and survivable than the super sonics.

        • Duane-aka Sir Lockmart

          Ha, you’d have more luck with a bunch of sailors with hand-held AK-47’s. I guess you haven’t read ANY of the reports stating that both the 30 and 57mm guns are unreliable and can’t hit anything. But don’t let those ‘experts’ and their ‘tests’ cloud your judgement, kept up the Lickmart dribble, and keep those paychecks coming, we know you need the money.

          • Secundius

            No unless Threat’s are within 50-meters! Because to the “AK” is basically Useless on a Moving Ship at Sea at Ranges beyond 100-meters. And I suspect the Ocean already has Enough “Copper Jacketed Lead” In It…

          • Duane

            Not true at all. You’re just inventing your own personal alternative facts, totally divorced from reality.

            Both guns are highly reliable, the Ml 110 57mm is the current version of the most highly reliable and deadly AA gun on US Naval ships in World War Two – the Bofors 40mm. But better. And fullly adopted by 22 navies of the world, including the US Navy and also the US Coast Guard (on the National Security Cutters).

            The Mk46 Bushmaster II is the navalized version standard 25mm or 30mm chain gun autocannon on most American and NATO standard military applications, everything from Bradley armored vehicles to helicopters like the UH-60 Blackhawk and the MH-60 Seahawk to various ships including the Perry, and is considered extremely reliable.

          • ShermansWar

            it’s not the gun, it’s the fire control system, and the thing can’t hit anything going over 10 kts.

          • Duane

            The fire control system works just fine. Like I wrote, this system has been installed and successfully operated for many years by 22 navies of the world, including both the US Navy and US Coast Guard.

          • BlueSky47

            Notice how the Fleet Admiral coveniently leaves out all of the testing done on the LCS, which proves the gun system are inaccurate and unrealiable, which proves that he’s just a big paid spokes-mouth for Lockmart

          • Secundius

            And Exactly How does those Tests compare with the “Arleigh Burke’s”. Which go through the SAME Tests…

          • Duane

            No – the testing does not prove that the guns are innaccurate. If you are referring to the ridiculous DOT&E tests from several years ago, they set an impossible standard that effecively tied both arms behind its back on the Mk 110 57mm gun. DOT&E required that a fleet of radically maneuvering high speed small craft be taken out without with only contact-fused munitions and without the use of the ORKA precision guided round. That is equivalent of requiring a hunter to kill an entire covey of quail using not a shotgun, but a 22 rifle. Good luck any hunter hitting anything. The Mk 110 gun system has multiselectable fusing including proximity fusing and the Mk 295 ORKA round is a precision guided round with 1 meter accuracy using a combination of FLIR or laser guided targeting. And even then the LCS took out all of the radically maneuvering high speed craft, just not wiithin the DOT&E specified range.

            In real world battle, the LCS will usse the proximity fusing (the equivalent of shooting doves with shotguns instead of 22 rifles) and the ORKA rounds, one shot/one kill. With 220 rpm and 120 rounds in the mount, the radically maneuvering high speed small craft will be obliterated in very short order. It’s been demonstrated in Navy videos posted here at USNI last year.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            Remember, any LCS tests that do not achieve the results Duane desires are hence conducted by ‘auditors’ who somehow do all their testing from desks, they never actually go out on the ships. Just ask him. LOL..

          • ShermansWar

            well, it doesn’t, tests showed it doesn’t and we had this argument 6 months ago and I shiwed the tests then when you questioned it. I’m not going to look it up for you again. it can’t engage a speedboat that’s actually speeding.( successfully, that is)

          • Secundius

            57mm Buford went into production in 1962! If Gun System was That BAD, Nobody including the United States would have Bought It…

          • ShermansWar

            No one said it was your unqualified and obscure ” that bad” . Rather said it can’t hit a speedboat at speed. At all. Don’t make me flog you again, sir. I’m going to have to start charging for lessons for my time. You have a Merry Christmas now.

          • Secundius

            Correct me if I’m wrong! But the Firing Platform (i.e. Naval Vessel) is also moving at Speed…

          • Duane

            No – you “proved” nothing of the kind. I quoted for you the actual test results that DOT&E documented. All of the targets were hit and destroyed, the DOT&E criticized that a couple of the targets managed to get closer than the test required .. but that was by restricting the rounds only to “hit to kill” impact fusing only, and none of the precision guided ORKA hit to kill rounds were used either (they were not yet available at the time of the test nearly three years ago). All Mk 110 57mm rounds are multi-fused, with fusing selection by the fire control system individually.

            In case you don’t realize, using contact fused cannon rounds on a radically maneuvering high speed small profile target is the equivalent to shooting a covey of quail with a 22 rifle. Nobody hunts quail with a 22 rifle – all quail hunting is done with shotguns, which provide the same effect as a proximity fused munition.

            Again, ALL the targets were hit, but DOT&E was cluelessly surprised that shooting such targets with contact fused rounds that are intended to be fired as proximity fused round is simply ridiculous.

            The precision guided ORKA rounds are guaranteed 1 meter accuracy out to full effective range of 9 nm, and are also multi-fused and proximity fusing is by far the preferred fusing,

          • Duane

            Let’s line up at 2 mile standoff range with your AK 47, muzzle to muzzle against the Mk 46 30mm, and see which one survives the first shot.

            Here’s a hint – the effective range of an AK 47 is 450 yards. Muzzle energy for the AK 47 is 1,470 ft pounds. Muzzle energy of the 30mm is 154,000 ft. pounds

        • ShermansWar

          Are we trying to suggest the 30mm are useful in an anti- ship missile defense role? Seriously?

          PS, they aren’t twin mounts, either.

          • Duane

            There are twin mounts – 2 Mk 46. In other words two mounts with one gun in each mount.

            And can engage, track and hit anything it can see with either of its seekers, a mm wave radar and a semi-active laser. If laser it can be lased by a designator on the ship or any of its embarked aircraft, which have state of the art radars to detect the ASCMs from far beyond the ship’s horizon, and can lase the target, or feed the data to the LCS’s fire control system. It’s all integrated.

          • ShermansWar

            it does not have a mm wave radar, thus no ability to engage ASMs

          • Duane

            It does in fact have a built in radar ranger which is all that’s needed for ballistic rounds (mm wave radars are used for precision guided munitions like SDB IIs and Hellfire AGM 114s), along with a sophisticated FLIR electro-optical day/night/fog sighting system also built into the mount, can be operated from the mount or from CIC via the ship’s fire control system.

            Designed for close in work against both surface and aerial targets. ASCM are aircraft. They are easily targeted within the horizon by both FLIR and ship’s radar, as well as the built in radar ranger.

            220 rpm firing rate, 400 rounds in the mount. 2 mile effective range, but longer if submunitions are used.

          • ShermansWar

            again, show me. what mounting on what ship has a ranging radar? It has a laser range finder which is nothing like a MM wave radar. I don’t think you know as much as you say you do. Point to a single mount on a single ship with an INTEGRAL radar you claim the system has.

            You do realize that by your definition, then every APC in the world has an anti missile capability because they have a 300 gun and flir along with a laser rangefinder, which is what the MK 46 has, although through several posts you seem unaware of that fact, it being the one integral feature of the sytem you DON’T mention, instead substituting claims of a mm wave radar. it doesn’t have a mm wave radar, but it DOES have a laser rangefinder. I say you know little about such system and they dont have the mechanical ability to engage fast enough and the weapons do not have the CEP the accurately engage and defeat anti ship missiles. It is defined nowhere as an anti-missile CIWS.

          • Duane

            The radar ranger is built into the gun mount, it is not part of the ship’s multi-function surface search/volume air search radar system. It is configured into both the Mk 46 30mm gun and the Mk 110 57 mm gun. Radar rangers have been used on naval guns going all the way back to World War Two – they are nothing new or unusual at all.

            SeaRam also uses an independent targeting radar system, adapted directly from the older Phalanx CIWS.

            Both guns also have electro-optical (FLIR) day/night targeting systems, also independent of the ship’s sensors and fire control systems.

          • ShermansWar

            well, no, it doesn’t.

          • Duane

            Uhh, yes it does. Look it up on the official US navy website. The Mk 46 30mm uses a built in radar ranger. Just as does the Mk 110 57mm gun And both guns also use electro-optical (FLIR) day/night targeting systems.

          • Secundius

            The Mk.46’s uses a AN/SPG-62 I/J-band Radar system

          • ShermansWar

            show me. I wanted to put up links that say it doesn’t but the site admins wont let me post hyperlinks. I don’t fins a single instance of a mk 46 with an integral radar, so, please, show me.

          • Secundius

            No one link source! I had to dig through at least Six Sources just to get information. Start of with the Mk.99 Illuminator, and go from there…

          • ShermansWar

            I already did dude, and trying to claim a an illuninator is a fire control radar for a 30 mm gun is kinda silly, sir, all due respect. all you have to do, even half a layman, is google an/spg 62 and the image is immediately recognizable as a ship wide target illuminator for anti-aircraft missiles.

          • Secundius

            Correct me if I’m wrong, but an “Illumination Radar” (Continuous-Wave Radar) is STILL a Radar. Regardless of its Designation…

          • ShermansWar

            it’s not integrated with the mk 46. check it out. Now, it may be something that could be accomplished with a major software integration effort down the road, but as of today no such capability exists, and certainly isn’t deployed, and I still say you can show otherwise, find me a source saying the MK 46 uses the spy 62 as an illiminator for the mk 46. They don’t even use the radar elements of the sytem for the 5″ gun, but your saying they do for the mk 46? no sir. again, find me where it says they operate together. NOWHERE can you find a mention of the mk 46 utilizing the ships main illuminators, for anything, let alone generating target tracks for the weapons and providing fire control. It has a laser rangefinder., EO and IR sensors.It has FLIR, doesnt even have IRST.

          • Secundius

            Except it or not! I no longer care…

          • ShermansWar

            Well that’s easy to say once you’ve lost the argument, isn’t it?
            See, that wasn’t so hard, was it.

          • ShermansWar

            hey, if an active duty navy man wants to tell me the AN 62 or 99 is used as FIRE CONTROL for the mk 46 30mm guns or that they are integrated so as to enable the mk 46 to engage anti ship missiles, jump right in fellas. Come set me straight.

          • Secundius

            Same ALSO hold true for the Aegis SPY Radar! It also Illuminates the Target. Simple Marine Radar or the Radar Gun used by the Police technically is a Illumination Radar. So is a Range Finding Radar…

          • ShermansWar

            Noone said it inst used for aegis. I is part of the aegis system. the mark 46 however is not, regardless of your assertions it is. it isn’t. just stop. Being on an Aegis ship doesn’t make it part of the Aegis system anymore than the coffee maker in the ship’s galley is an Aegis coffee maker.

            If you dont know the differnece between a tracking radar and a laser range finder ( which is what’s integral to the mk 46, NOT a radar) then i dont know what to tell you, except to AGAIN state the ships tracking illiminators provide neither targetting or taracking for the mk 46 weapons systems, and you can find nothing to show otherwise.

          • Secundius

            So NO Illumination Radar can Operate without the Aid of a Phased Radar Array like the SPY! If TRUE that would also apply to the Radome of a Hawkeye…

          • Rhino601

            Actually not. RADAR is an acronym for Radio Detection and Ranging. An illuminator does neither. An illuminator “squirts” RF energy into space.

          • Secundius

            Maybe you should look up the Definition of what an “Illumination Radar” actually does, before posting…

          • Rhino601

            perhaps you should, sweetheart.

          • Secundius

            “Sweetheart” Now! What have I done to deserve that kind of “Acclamation”, from someone like you?/!

          • ShermansWar

            PS the mk 99 is described in navy lit as a MISSILE guidance system,and ther an 62s are the illuminators for the sytem. for ESSM and standard missiles. they DON’T support the mk 46 GWS. in fact they don’t even support the ships 5″ gun which uses the mk 34 system , which utilizes the OPTICAL illuminator element on the AN/SPG 62. I will continue to look into it, however.

          • Secundius

            Continuous Wave Band Radar? Where’s the difficulty in the interpretation of the meaning…

          • ShermansWar

            again, find me anything anywhere that says the 2 are integrated, they aren’t and they CERTAINLY arent’ integral.

          • Secundius

            Old AT&T axiom, “Let you’re fingers do the walking”…

          • ShermansWar

            Wise old man axiom you may want to avail yourself of “Quit while you’re ahead”.
            Even Duane had the good sense to disengage once he recognized he was on untenable ground.

          • ShermansWar

            The assertion wasnt that the SHIP they were on didnt have CW radar, but rather it is NEITHER INTEGRAL to the mk 46, NOR INTEGRATED AS FIRE CONTROL for the mk 46. dont try and pretend I said the SHIP had no such systems, I said they are not utilized as part of the mk 46 fire control system to the point they are used for anti ship missile intercepts. or that the system itself is capable of such intercepts within the weapons system itself, which was the initial claim Duane made that you then supported. unlike some, i am able to follow a conversation, sir.

          • Secundius

            I suspect the SAME can be said about the SPY…

          • ShermansWar

            the issue was it was claimed as integral
            calling the ships main radar as integral is nonsense. there is a difference between integrated, and integral, and it does NOT use that radar for generating weapons tracks for mk 46 guns or for direct guidance and fire control of such guns. they can tell the turret where a target is, that’s it. It is NOT used as a fire control radar for that gun. it is an illuminator for aegis ships for their missiles fired from their VLS shells. Nice shell game you tried there.

          • Secundius

            That would Apply to the Longbow Radar and/or any other Intercept Radar System Fielded…

          • ShermansWar

            You’re obfuscating and grasping at straws at this point, sir. The challenge still stands. Find where it says the an/62 or 99 are used as FIRE CONTROL for the mk 46

          • Secundius

            What was that saying of Your’s in the Last Comment? Something about “Quitting while you’re ahead”, I believe. You’re Not Following It…

          • Rhino601

            Two mounts with one barrel each are two single mounts. Two mounts with two barrels each are two twin mounts. sheeze

          • Duane

            Arguing over semantics is dumb and pedantic. Twin Mk 46 mounts on an LCS is an extremely clear and truthful way to describe it. I did not write that the mounts themselves were “twin mounts”. Two mounts, two guns total.

          • Rhino601

            Wrong, knucklehead. If you understood basic naval ordnance and gunnery you would appreciate the value of correct terminology.

          • Duane

            There is no applicable terminology. There are twin mounts of the Mk 46 30mm gun on the LCS. End of discussion.

          • Rhino601

            Allow me to dot the lower case jays: “Two Mk 46 mounts on an LCS,” reads better, since MK 46 implies a single mount.

          • Duane

            Yes, a Mk 46 “mount” contains a single barrel 30mm electrically-operated chain gun. There are two such mounts in the LCS.

          • Duane

            Got any other i’s to dot and tees to cross that add absolutely nothing to the conversation?

            I never ever wrote that the Mk 46 mount is a twin barreled gun. The Mk 46 is a single barrel gun, and there are two of them on an LCS. That is the only thing that matters. All else is just trying to argue for the purpose of being pedantic.

          • Secundius

            Their “Water Jacketed” for Higher Rates of Sustained Fire. The Mk. 15 CIWS had to go into a Cooling Cycle after Every 5-Second Burst…

          • ShermansWar

            Not for nothing, the 200 RPM rate of fire is no faster than any other 30mm, water jacketed or not. I do like the system, though.

          • Secundius

            Yet the Magazines of the Mk.46’s can be Hot Swapped and Topped Of while Still in a Fight. Mk.15’s require a minimum of 20-minute by a Well Trained Crew of Four to change the Magazine Drum and Feed the Gun…

          • ShermansWar

            probably why I like it.

        • OS1 retired

          Hey Fleet Admiral Dueinee, name a successful test where this mythical ability has been proven……….we’re waiting……………………….we’re………………………………….. waiting…………………………………………………………we hear nothing but silence from you

          • Duane

            The 30 mm Bushmaster series of chain guns is among the world’s most highly combat proven rapid fire autocannons in existence, adapted to dozens of platforms in US and NATO arms. For decades.

        • Chesapeakeguy

          Duane, those ARE the very same 30mm guns that the Zumwalt folks found far superior to the Mk110 57 mm gun, are they not? Hmmm?

        • Rocco

          The 57 mm gun is not a derivative of the 40 Bofors!!!

          • Secundius

            Royal Ordnance QF 6pdr Class M Mk.III with Molins Autoloader, as I recall…

        • Bubblehead

          The 30mm gun would have almost zero ability to engage ASCM. Its gun turret is too long and its rate of fire is not fast enough. It would be effective against much slower airborne targets like UAV’s & helo’s however.

          And the USN appears to be very interested in adding SEARAM to all its Burkes. The USN brass is very fond of the SEARAM to say the least. I would think if funding was there the USN would quickly start to install SEARAM on more Burkes. The 25mm CIWS is no longer very effective against MACH 2.5 ASCM performing evasive maneuvers.

          What I havent been able to figure out is the expected delivery date of first FtIII Burke? Anybody know? I keep reading conflicting reports. I wonder if these conflicting reports are on purpose in fact.

          • Duane

            The Mk 46 30mm rate of fire is 220 rounds per minute with 400 rounds in the magazine. Selectable as 5-round bursts or individual fires. How is THAT not “fast enough” to engage an ASCM moving direct inbound on a straight in, more or less constant flight path and elevation approach at subsonic speeds?

            It only takes one hit by the explosive projectile and the ASCM is destroyed. The ASCM will be direct LOS inbound within the horizon for at least 5 miles. At an airspeed of 600 mph or 880 fps, the inbound ASCM will be LOS for over 30 seconds. In that period of time, the gun will be capable of putting at least 110 rounds downrange.

            Length of barrel is immaterial – the firing rate is the firing rate. The rounds are very high velocity rounds – about 3,400 fps muzzle velocity.

          • Bubblehead

            Its basic physics why length barrel has everything do with Mk46 shooting down ASCM. Amongst other reasons. If i gave you a 20ft pole with laser at the end and stood 100 yards fm you and told you to keep it shined on me, you couldn’t do it. But if i did the same with 5ft pole you could. Now include the rocking of a ship in sea state 5. Shorter barrels would greatly increase accuracy. The USN would never rely on mk46 to shoot down ASCM. It would be suicidal. Hence they have never even attempted to shoot one down in tests. Which proves the point, the USN does not plan on using them against ASCM.

            The USN keeps contradicting itself on mk110. They take mk110 off zums saying mk46 superior. Keep mk110 on worthless LCS which, lacking missiles, is its primary weapon, then insist they want mk110 on FFGX. Which is plain stupid. The OTO 76mm is superior to 57mm is every single facet. Especially considering its guided rounds. My guess is USN is doing this for logistics reasons. But by USN own words they admit the 57mm is not a good gun.

          • Duane

            Your logic completely fails. We are not dealing with poles, or lasers. The barrel length for the Mk 46 is no problem at all, it’s ridiculous to try and pretend it is. It is not a long barrel anyway – just 134 inches – 11 ft 2 inches … firing at targets at 2 miles range to within no more than, let’s say, 50 yards.

            The 76 mm and 127mm guns are useless for not only shooting down aircraft (including inbound ASCMs) but small craft too – which is why the DDGs are not survivable in the littorals (if they can even steam into the littorals with their deep drafts), while the LCS is the world’s most survivable littoral warship on the planet, bar none

            The firing rate of the bigger (but still small, compared to the firepower of any ASCM) guns of DDGs or foreign frigates is way too slow – only 16 rpm, less than 1/10th the firing rate of either the Mk 110 57mm or Mk 46 30mm guns, both of which fire at 220 rpm. The bigger guns only carry a small number of rounds in the mount – 20 rounds – before they must be manually reloaded by a 5-man guncrew. The 57mm contains 180 ready rounds in the mount, only needs a 2-man guncrew to reload from the 1,000 rounds stored in the mount. The 30mm contains 400 ready rounds in the gun magazine. Both guns employ state of the art electro-optical gunsights with built-in radar rangers, are fully integrated with the ship’s fire control system. And only the 57mm gun, out of all guns the US Navy deploys today, fires a precision guided round with 1 meter accuracy.

          • Duane

            The Mk 46 gun can train and shoot at 220 rpm. That’s all you need to know.

            The Navy does not “rely on the Mk 46” to protect against ASCMs, because it does not rely on any single system to do that. Layered defenses are what are relied upon. The Mk 46 is the last, closest-in layer in defenses against aerial targets, with a 2-mile effective range. The outermost layer starts with the deployed aircraft including the MH-60R and the MQ-8, and the ability to sense not only the ASCMs using its sophisticated synthetic aperture AESA radars on both aircraft types, with onboard laser designators, and Hellfire missiles that can operate out to ranges in excess of 100 nm from the ship. The next layer is the Mk 110 57mm gun with its sophisticated one of a kind one shot/one kill precision guided ORKA rounds using either of the built in FLIR targeter or laser designator from ship or aircraft, at 9 nm out. Then the next layer is 5.5 nm out, with both onboard Hellfire missiles and SeaRAM anti-missile missiles. With the last layer being the two Mk 46 30mm mounts at 2 nm range.

            Oh, and the LCS also features another very close in defense layer – its countermeasures and ESM systems, both electronic and physical chaff rockets.

        • Rhino601

          yawn

          • Duane

            Stayed up past your bedtime?

          • Rhino601

            Bored to death with your regurgitation of the LCS sales pitch.

          • Duane

            No sales pitch necessary or given … LCS is reality. At least 31 of them. That “train” left the station long ago.

          • OS1 retired

            11 years after it launched, we’re still waiting for a tiny sliver any reality. Is that too much to ask of a supposed warship(?) Apparently it is.

          • Duane

            What are you waiting for? We’ve been deploying LCS in the South China sea for the last 4 years. They’ve been performing patrols, interacting with our allies in the West Pac Rim, conducting joint exercises such as RimPACs for the last three years. TheSuW mission module was just declared IOC this calendar year, and ASW will be IOC before the end of 2018, and MCM before the end of 2019.

            What is it about that that is unreal?

            Starting this fiscal year (2018) we will deploy two LCS simultaneously to the SCS, and it is expected that the first deployments to the Persian Gulf will also begin this year, as the first st ep in deploying 7 of them there.

    • Secundius

      An “Overlook” by Design Engineers! The “AB’s” were never intended to receive the SeaRAM. It wasn’t until 15 September 2015, that Engineers took a Second Look at the System. Since then at least Five “AB’s” have received SeaRAM: DDG-64 “Carney”, DDG-71 “Ross”, DDG-75 “Donald Cook”, DDG-78 “Porter” and DDG-88 “Preble”. And More to follow through Maintenance Upgrades…

  • Rocco

    Aye Aye Admiral!!!⚓️

    • PolicyWonk

      Sir LockMart forgot to mention that the Flight III’s aren’t fast enough, and therefore it compromises the ships ability to RUN AWAY at the first sign of danger!

      • Rocco

        Heh heh!!

      • WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot

        I’m still waiting for the ‘test’ that proves the LCS can outrun missile, shells and even fast boats. Until that day arrive the speed of the LCS is nothing but a giant j e r k-off for the Fleet Admiral types

  • So only one CIWS instead of two like in Flight I

  • Duane

    Interesting that the Flight IIIs adopted the Zumwalt electric power plant, at least as far as voltage. I haven’t read anything yet about whether the new plant is also capable of powering EM weapons, in addition to the more powerful AN/SPY 6 Aegis radar.

    • Rhino601

      4160 V generators are also used is Makin Island (LHD 8) and America (LHA 6) Class. On the amphibs 4160V is distributed ship-wide and stepped down locally. Flt III uses 4160V for the radars only.

  • Ken N

    The 4 ROTA based DDG’s primary mission was BMD defense. Because of the AEGIS software version installed they could not perform BMD and anti-air at the same time. This left them vulnerable to ASCM’s as Russia was “invading” Crimea. The solution was to install the stand alone SEARAM system. Newer version’s of Aegis can perform the BMD mission and engage anti-air threats with SM-2/6/ESSM simultaneously making the addition of SeaRAM kinda moot.

    • ElmCityAle

      I thought the issue was also one of a limited “pool” of radar energy, which was all required to scanning for BMD. Either way, the function of SeaRAM (or just RAM) would be the last layer of defense for anything that leaked through the SM-2/6 and then ESSM layers, just like the 20mm CIWS.

  • leroy

    Remember this story:

    “Chief Petty Officer Gary Rehm, 37, called the sailors on the USS Fitzgerald his ‘kids.’ And when his kids were trapped after the collision with a container ship, he sacrificed himself to save them.”

    Now, will the Navy be naming a Burke after him? Sounds like they at least ought to give it consideration.

    • leroy

      I left this out – from USNI:

      “In particular, Moran singled out the actions of Gary Leo Rehm Jr., who was advanced to Chief Petty Officer posthumously this week. Rehm helped get several sailors out to the exits while Berthing 2 was flooding and was one of the seven who died.

      “In Gary Rehm is the sprit, courage and values of what we’d expect of a chief petty officer,” Moran said. “CPO Rehm’s actions that night clearly embodied those values as he and several others crew members did some extraordinary things to make sure they could save additional lives. Selflessly he gave his own, and saved the ship, which was in jeopardy after the collision.” “

      • Old Salt

        Let’s hope that happens with our new SecNav. But thank God our previous worthless SecNav is gone, the next ships to be named on his watch were going to be the: USS Franken Stein, USS Chucke Shumer, and the USS Manchelle Obumer

        • Rocco

          Lol!! You forgot USS A Wiener!!!

      • Rocco

        Kudos

  • ShermansWar

    Weren’t the responses to the conceptual RFP for the FFG(X) due yesterday? Odd, no word on it in weeks, who responded, what they look like, anything, like the program disappeared. Has it been shifted to the back burner?

  • Secundius

    Not my Point! ANY Radar system regardless of Band Frequency will “Illuminate” a Target (be it Threat or Obstruction). But not all Radar Systems will GUIDE a Missile and/or Gun to the Threat Target…

    • Rhino601

      Painting and illuminating are two different things.

      • Secundius

        Who said anything about “Painting”? I said “Illuminating”! Deflecting the Issue Already…

        • Rhino601

          I was offering up a more descriptive term for what radars (not illuminators) do.