Home » Budget Industry » Navy Releases RFP for Multi-Year Flight III Arleigh Burke Destroyer Buy

Navy Releases RFP for Multi-Year Flight III Arleigh Burke Destroyer Buy

Artists rendering of the first planned Flight III Arleigh Burke destroyer, Jack H. Lucas. HII Photo

Artists rendering of the first planned Flight III Arleigh Burke destroyer, Jack H. Lucas. HII Photo

SAN DIEGO, Calif. – The Navy released the final request for proposal today for a multi-year contract to build the Flight III Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer said the service’s chief weapons buyer on Thursday.

James Geurts, assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development, and acquisition, announced the release while speaking at the WEST 2018 conference. The competition for the congressionally approved multi-year contract is limited to two vendors – General Dynamics – Bath Iron Works and Huntington Ingalls Industries.

“I’m very confident they will be creative in the competitive process to give us really great options to build those ships,” Geurts said.

The contract, which starts in fiscal year 2018 and runs through fiscal year 2022, continues the Flight III configuration and incorporates the more powerfulRaytheon-built AN/SPY6(V)1 Air and Missile Defense Radar into the design.

“We’ve got a mature Flight III design now which is going to give us great increases in lethality on those ships,” Geurts said.
“Now we’re looking to the shipbuilders looking at how they can build those ships as effectively and quickly as possible.”

This procurement will continue production of the DDG-51 class shipbuilding program, which so far has delivered 65 ships to the Navy.

In December, Capt. Casey Moton, program manager for the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer program, told USNI news the Flight III upgrade affected about 45 percent of the ship’s drawings zones. Most of 2017 was spent finalizing the designs for the Flight III upgrade, a process including creating 3D models.

During his remarks at WEST 2018, Geurts called the new Flight III design process a great example of how the Navy can deliver lethal capacity while working to reduce production costs. The 3D modeling was a key component of this effort, and something he’s promoting for use throughout the department.

When full ship designs use 3D modeling, Geurts said the enhanced designs help production teams speed up production and inspections of large projects by helping identify redundancies to eliminate and improve workflow management. Geurts said even something as simple sounding as drilling holes in steel plates can be sped up and made precise using this technology.

“We’ve got to figure out how to get those kinds of technologies in so we can drive out the costs of these mega projects,” Geurts said.

  • DaSaint

    Ingalls will beat BIW every time, and will probably get 60% of the work.

  • Ed L

    Wonder if anyone ever though of a twin mount of the latest version of the 127mm gun for our ships

    • ElmCityAle

      Twice as much weight that will likely never be used as a weapons system in combat.

      • SvD

        For coastal fire support, there is a cheap way, convert a San Antiono class LPD into an artillery ship.
        If the midship above deck structures would be cut to a bare minimum, there is enough space for multiple 127mm guns, ammo and even VLS for Tomahawks. With extended range ammunition, it would be useful, if needed.
        2 ships should do it. They would be a steal compared to the Zumwalts and the recommissioning of the Iowas. On top, they would fit in nicely from a training/manning/maintenance perspective.

        The stealthy Zumwalt is a stupid concept, with non-standard ammunition, and the thinking no one would see the ship or notice the artillery shells hitting their targets and look for their launch point.

        Giving each San Antiono LPD its own 127mm would be kinda useful, too.

        • Rocco

          Hey I like your ideas!! Agreed the Zumwalt is a stupid ship & alot of wasted taxpayers money.

          • SvD

            The fancy gun system alone was doomed, due to cost. Same goes for the Army artillery program, which wanted to be sci-fi cool too.

            The German Navy tried to use the land forces 155mm systems, namely a turret from the PzH2000. This would have made things easier and boost the power of the gun system.
            It failed, cause the turret and the system of a separated shell and propellant wasn’t really made for the naval environment.

            In the end, they were cursed with not having a 155mm nor a 127mm but a nice 76mm from the depot.
            The newer frigates got a standard 127mm lightweight gun. With the gun being able to use the VULCANO 127mm extended range ammunition, it is not bad at all.

            Keeping it simple often frees up money for a lot of other simple programs. Wonder weapons don’t really work that well.

          • Rocco

            Agreed! The 57 mm doesn’t cut it but I don’t think a 5 ” gun would be good on LCS ship’s. But at least a 75 mm like the Perry’s carried . By all rights the should of had a 5″ !!

          • Real sailor

            Fyi, the very small (237 tonn) Pegasas class had a 76mm gun and 8 Harpoons. That’s more firepower than a whole fleet of LCS.

          • ElmCityAle

            LCS will mount 4-8 AS missile cells in the coming year. Whether any gun system larger than 30mm or 57mm has any likely use is debatable. No ship is getting close enough to the shoreline – making it a target – to provide “fire support” (for beach landings that will likely never again happen in the size and scope of previous wars).

          • Rocco

            The gun is used to take out small boats !!

      • Rocco

        Not the reason!

    • Rocco

      Yeah me!! Lol but with the room needed for VLS & other weapons we’re lucky a gun is on the bow!!

    • FactChecker90803

      How about a modernized 8″/55 caliber Mark 71 major caliber lightweight gun.

  • Curtis Conway

    Hopefully the NSC was designed using the same technology, or can quickly be placed in a comparable data base. This will really speed up FFG(X) is they use it for that purpose.

  • Ex Navy warrior

    Good news, the way we’re running the Burkes ragged nowadays, we need all the ships we can get. But wait, here’s a better idea, let’s build a FRIGATE (angels singing, trumpets blowing, peole cheering…) and lots of them. They can take over a lot of the mission the Burkes are being ran ragged on. But let’s not wait 20 years to do it. we got a great platform in the National Security Cutter than can be modified to patrol frigate level. Let’s build 20 of them right now, and while that’s happening we can haggle over the next full-Frigate design. Oh the LCS you cry, oh yes, the poor little LCS, I’ve got the perfect role for it, it can hold the Frigate’s coffee and become the ‘Little Coffee Ship’ it’s always wanted to become 😛

    • Augustine’s Lion

      HAHAHA. What a waste the LCS has been! Both time and tons of money….ughh. We could have had a sensible program like the “Flight II and III” but focused on the Perry’s.
      “LCS:little crappy ships”

    • Rocco

      Agreed indeed!! Actually that’s under consideration as it was this blog a month ago. We need FFG’s ……..But wait there’s more!!!!!……….It will cost half the price or more than a Burke class$$$$!

      • Secundius

        According to “Marine Log” keel was laid for Flight III Destroyer DDG-125, USS Jack H. Lucas on 9 May 2018…

    • Willie

      couldnt agree more. The primary missions our DDGs are running do not require hardly any of their capabilities. We are using ships designed to conduct war at 100 miles to patrol the shores of our would be enemies at 3-10 miles.

  • ShermansWar

    Why don’t they say how many ships are in the buy?

    • DaSaint

      I thought I heard/saw somewhere that it may be 5.

  • DaSaint

    No disrespect at all. For generations Bath Built was synonymous with Best Built. But they can’t compete with lower wages, better weather, and larger facilities of Ingalls in Mississippi. That’s why they lost the lead Flight III contract and prior to that the OPC contract. Couldn’t compete with Eastern Shipbuilding on price in Florida.

    And you’re a poet and don’t know it!

    • Fred Gould

      Why are the INSUR reports on the DDG51’s classifed?

    • Rocco

      Yeah but bath don’t have to worry about hurricanes!!

      • DaSaint

        No need to worry about that when you’re freezing in an outdoor shipyard.

        • Rocco

          Lol copy that!!😨

  • DaSaint

    [email protected] your last sentence. Wish we could solve world hunger though, but that’s a whole other issue!

    Agree regarding those pea shooters. Remove them and install nothing but VLS and call it a day.

  • publius_maximus_III

    Yeah Baby!

  • ShermansWar

    This has to be the worst post of 2018, so far.

  • WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot

    Patty Whinner strikes again

  • John B. Morgen

    The Navy should be thinking about using the Arleigh Burke design as a pattern for building cruisers; instead, of wasting funds on LSC type warships..

    • vegass04

      I am more interested to see what hull will the Navy use for our next gen cruiser replacement. Currently 2 designs fit the Navy requirements and those are LPD-17 San Antonio class and the Zumwalt class. Both of these hulls have drawbacks. San Antonio is way to slow to sail with an aircraft carrier while Zumwalt has some problems in heavy seas with its ground braking tumble home design hull. But that being said, giving the requirements that the Navy wants in its next gen cruiser (NGC), Zumwalts are better option. Biggest requirement is the massive power generation capability needed for the next generation of directed energy weapons systems. Flight III Burke would be a miserable replacement for the next cruiser cause the capability to grow is small.

      • Secundius

        Unfortunately the Replacement for the “Tico’s” won’t be a “Cruiser” design.

        ( https : // defensenews . com / digital – show – dailies / surface – navy – association / 2018 /01 /09 / surface – warfare – director – cruiser – replacement – wont – be – a – cruiser / ) …

  • Frank Langham

    I am no fan of the LCS, as a general purpose SSC but I do see, very clearly, that an up-armed LCS is well suited to games of tag and hide-n-seek, around the many thousands of islands, atolls, straits and other nooks and crannies, throughout the Pacific Rim. … They can also act as a lily-pad, for helo ops, in protected lagoons and other remote hides. … I am just saying that I could put them to good use and they CAN do things (and go places) that no other ship in OUR inventory is capable of. … Finally, there IS an issue of industrial production capacity and domestic economics. … Even if we could go back and kill the LCS program, we would still need something else, very much like it. … Cost is another issue, entirely, but I am speaking to unique and useful capabilities, here (to be fair).