Home » Budget Industry » Destroyer Paul Ignatius Passes Acceptance Trials Ahead of Early 2019 Delivery


Destroyer Paul Ignatius Passes Acceptance Trials Ahead of Early 2019 Delivery

The Ingalls-built destroyer Paul Ignatius (DDG 117) launched at first light Saturday morning, Nov. 12, 2016. Ingalls Shipbuilding photo.

Guided-missile destroyer Paul Ignatius (DDG-117) has completed its acceptance trials ahead of an expected early 2019 delivery to the Navy, Naval Sea System Command announced on Friday.

The Flight IIA Arleigh Burke-class destroyer spent two days in the Gulf of Mexico working through a series of demonstrations and tests for the U.S. Navy’s Board of Inspection and Survey
(INSURV).

“The ship performed very well, which is a testament to the preparation and commitment of the Navy-shipbuilder team,” said Capt. Casey Moton, DDG 51 class program manager, Program Executive Office (PEO) Ships in a statement. “The ship also previously performed a successful SM-2 shoot during builder’s trials, further demonstrating the readiness of the ship’s Aegis weapon system and ship’s force. These trials put the ship on a solid path towards delivery to the Navy.”

The ship will feature the Aegis Baseline 9 combat system that will allow the ship to simultaneously patrol for ballistic missile threats as well as combat traditional air and cruise missiles threats.

The Huntington Ingalls Industries-built Ignatius is set to be the first destroyer commissioned of a ten-ship, multiyear Arleigh Burke-class (DDG-51) procurement. The contract was awarded to HII and General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in 2013 that followed a 2008, four-ship restart of the Burke line.

In September the two companies were awarded a multiyear deal for Flight III Burkes with a combined value of about $9 billion.

HII is also constructing Flight IIA destroyers Delbert D. Black (DDG-119), Frank E. Peterson Jr. (DDG-121), Lenah H. Sutcliffe Higbee (DDG-123) and the first Flight III Burke Jack H. Lucas (DDG-125).

The following is the complete Dec. 21, 2018 statement from NAVSEA.

Future USS Paul Ignatius Successfully Completes Acceptance Trials
From Team Ships Public Affairs

Pascagoula, Miss. – The future USS Paul Ignatius (DDG 117) successfully completed acceptance trials on Dec. 20, returning to Huntington Ingalls
Industries’ (HII) Pascagoula shipyard after spending two days at sea in the Gulf of Mexico.

During acceptance trials, the ship and its crew performed a series of demonstrations for review by the U.S. Navy’s Board of Inspection and Survey
(INSURV). These demonstrations are used by INSURV to validate the quality of construction and compliance with Navy specifications and requirements prior to delivery of the ship to the U.S. Navy.

“The ship performed very well, which is a testament to the preparation and commitment of the Navy-shipbuilder team,” said Capt. Casey Moton, DDG 51
class program manager, Program Executive Office (PEO) Ships. “The ship also previously performed a successful SM-2 shoot during builder’s trials,
further demonstrating the readiness of the ship’s Aegis weapon system and ship’s force. These trials put the ship on a solid path towards delivery to the Navy.”

The DDG 51 class ships currently being constructed are Aegis Baseline 9 Integrated Air and Missile Defense destroyers with increased computing power and radar upgrades that improve detection and reaction capabilities against modern air warfare and Ballistic Missile Defense threats. When operational, DDG 117 and her sister ships will serve as integral assets in global maritime security.

The future USS Paul Ignatius is expected to be delivered to the Navy early next year. HII’s Pascagoula shipyard is also currently in production on the future destroyers Delbert D. Black (DDG 119), Frank E. Peterson Jr. (DDG 121), Lenah H. Sutcliffe Higbee (DDG 123) and Jack H. Lucas (DDG 125), the first Flight III ship. HII was recently awarded a contract for the design and construction of six additional DDG 51 class Flight III ships.

As one of the Defense Department’s largest acquisition organizations, PEO Ships is responsible for executing the development and procurement of all
destroyers, amphibious ships, special mission and support ships, and boats and craft.

-NAVSEA-

  • Ed L

    Far out

  • Centaurus

    Light it up the weapons. Set something aflame !

  • RunningBear

    DDG-117 is the 2nd of 10 Flight 2A-TI Arleigh Burke USN destroyers.

    1- FLIGHT 2A-TI – Thomas Hudner; DDG-116, FY12-1
    2- FLIGHT 2A-TI – Paul Ignatius; DDG-117, FY13-1
    3- FLIGHT 2A-TI – Daniel Inouye; DDG-118, FY13-2
    4- FLIGHT 2A-TI – Delbert D. Black; DDG-119, FY13-3
    5- FLIGHT 2A-TI – Carl M. Levin; DDG-120, FY14-1
    6- FLIGHT 2A-TI – Frank E. Petersen, Jr.; DDG-121, FY15-1
    7- FLIGHT 2A-TI – John Basilone; DDG-122, FY15-2
    8- FLIGHT 2A-TI – Lenah H. Sutcliffe Higbee; DDG-123, FY16-1
    9- FLIGHT 2A-TI – Harvey C. Barnum, Jr.; DDG-124, FY16-2
    10- FLIGHT 2A-TI – Patrick Gallagher; DDG-127, FY16-3

    DDG-116 is the first Flight 2A-Technology Insertion destroyer incorporating the elements of the next generation of Arleigh Burke class destroyers, called Flight III,
    – Aegis Baseline 9 Combat System
    – Integrated Air and Missile Defense/ IAMD
    – Ballistic Missile Defense 5.0 Capability Upgrade/ BMD 5.0 CU
    – Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air/ NIFC-CA
    – Cooperative Engagement Capability/ CEC

    The CEC system conducts air and missile defense by distributing sensor and weapons data by fusing high quality tracking data from participating sensors and distributes it to all other participants to create one common air defense picture based on all sensor data available. This ability enables early target detection and consistent tracking of air contacts. At the heart of the CEC is a communications system.

    CEC distributes radar measurement data instead of actual tracks from each CEC unit to all other CEC units, which communicate in pairs during short transmit and receive periods through a narrow directional signal. Data flows across the network in near real time and communication is virtually jam-proof, experts say.

    CEC units are able to engage using CEC composite tracks, even when the firing unit does not hold the track. Because CEC combines radar measurement data from all of the ships and aircraft on the network, the CEC picture covers a larger geographic area than any one sensor can, and enhances radar coverage over land.

    In theater ballistic missile defense, the CEC provides a continuous fire-control quality track on the incoming missile. Although each ship is able only to maintain track for part of the missile flight, the CEC composite track, based on all the data, is continuous.

    Ships operating “without” CEC must spread their radar energy widely, which limits the time and energy available to search in the difficult land clutter region. Operating together, with CEC, one ship can search the entire volume while the other ships concentrate on the land clutter region.

    Flight 2A-Technology Insertion is proving Flight 3 before AMDR is installed and tested.
    IMHO
    Fly Navy
    🙂

    • Graeme Rymill

      Those upgrades you list as being present in the Technology Insert Flight 2A are also present in the three earlier Flight 2A Restart destroyers.

      USS John Finn
      USS Ralph Johnson
      USS Raphael Peralta

      All three were launched in 2015. They all have Baseline 9, IAMD, BDM 5.0 and Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air. How these three differ from the “Technology Insert” Burkes is a bit of a mystery. In an earlier post I speculated that the difference may simply be that the Technology Inserts have a hardware upgrade to the AEGIS computers to handle the demands of future software upgrades such as Baseline 10.

      • RunningBear

        “is a bit of a mystery”, they follow the obvious 5yr. Zumwalt gap and are the transition re-start after the Zumwalts. Zumwalts did not use Aegis and therefore the AB/Aegis re-start allowed the technology upgrades that you identified as the precursors for Flight 3 with AMDR. The TIs are the systems technology demonstrators for the Flight 3 without waiting for the engineering and manufacturing for the power and cooling upgrades for Spy6/ AMDR.

        Finally!, we are seeing the sensor integration/merging into the C2 systems and not fixating on one sensor/ one box/ one operator/ one ship. Those “Apps” you identified are allowing for the sensor technology advances and no longer will require the re-plumbing the entire ship to upgrade a subsystem but a simple “plugin” of the new sensor and a software update to the sensor processor with the same software interfaces to the command nodes.

        New weapons will be plug and play, and also the new sensors with both greater sensitivity and higher resolutions; all feeding the faster, multiples of processors in the networked command nodes. DDG-113 forward have the systems architecture for the future upgrades and Flight 3 will bring forward the power and cooling upgrades necessary for the Spy6/AMDR.

        CEC will use each of these ships sensor systems to feed the networked C2 and allow for greater understanding of the command view for Group Defense because they will be sharing the same data displays at each node. No longer is each ship “stove piped” with only their “part” of the view but sharing as a node with the overall insight; the same with their weapons sets for each mode of the group defense.
        IMHO
        Fly Navy
        🙂

  • Duane

    We need these new Flight IIAs with Baseline 9 as fast as the yards can produce them. Missile defense is getting more important every year.

  • publius_maximus_III

    What a beauty!

  • TransformerSWO

    Beautiful ship, and it will be good to have her in our Navy. I’m just disappointed that this ship will be one of several on the list below to be named for political reasons. Destroyers are supposed to be named for our heroes like Thomas Hudner and John Basilone.