Home » Budget Industry » Navy Awards Bath Iron Works a Second FY 2019 Destroyer, In First Move to 3-a-Year Buy Rate


Navy Awards Bath Iron Works a Second FY 2019 Destroyer, In First Move to 3-a-Year Buy Rate

USS Thomas Hudner (DDG-116) during construction at General Dynamics Bath Iron Works. BIW photo.

The Navy awarded General Dynamics’ Bath Iron Works a second destroyer for Fiscal Year 2019, in the first contract option that accelerates DDG buys from the Navy’s previous two-a-year rate.

In September the Navy awarded the first 10 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers in the five-year multiyear procurement contract that spans FY 2018 to 2022. Six ships went to Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula, Miss. – two in 2018, and one a year in 2019 through 2022. Bath Iron Works got zero ships for 2018 and one a year in 2019 through 2022.

This option award that gives another ship to BIW in 2019 not only boosts the Maine yard’s workload but also is the first move to three DDGs a year. The Navy in previous budget submissions had outlined a two-a-year procurement rate for the near future, but the House and Senate armed services committees authorized the Navy to enter into multiyear contracts for up to 15 ships in five years. The contracts with Ingalls Shipbuilding and Bath Iron Works were signed at the end of September and awarded the first 10 right away, with options for five more ships.

Though the House and Senate armed services committees authorized the Navy to buy three destroyers in FY 2018, the appropriators only gave money for two. However, both the authorizers and appropriators agreed to three in FY 2019, which allowed the Navy to award this option to BIW.

BATH, Maine- The future USS Rafael Peralta (DDG 115) sets sail for the first time to conduct initial at-sea builder’s trials off the coast of Maine. (U.S. Navy photo courtesy of General Dynamics, Bath Iron Works/Released)

According to a BIW press release, “the Navy held a separate competition for an option ship as part of its commitment to growing the fleet,” though it is unclear if the competition was based strictly on price or if other factors such as backlog, industrial base needs and others were taken into consideration. U.S. Navy and Bath Iron Works spokespeople could not be reached immediately regarding the nature of the competition for this contract option.

“Bath Iron Works is privileged to continue producing state-of-the-art surface combatants for the longest running naval shipbuilding program in our nation’s history,” Dirk Lesko, president of Bath Iron Works, said in the press release.
“This award demonstrates the vital role the DDG 51 plays in the security posture of the United States and the confidence the Navy has in our shipyard to produce these important assets.”

According to the press release, BIW currently has five Arleigh Burke destroyers in production at the yard: Daniel Inouye (DDG-118), Carl M. Levin (DDG-120), John Basilone (DDG-122), Harvey C. Barnum (DDG-124) and Patrick Gallagher (DDG-127). Under contract but not yet under construction are Louis H. Wilson Jr. (DDG-126) and the five ships that have now been awarded under the multiyear contract.

  • Ed L

    Three a year build sounds Great! Now the Navy needs to do this with the FFGX but have four different shipyards each build One FFGX a year for 5 years. If the FFGX turns out to be a proven warship then, expand the build to Ten Years.

    • Ser Arthur Dayne

      if they could freakin PICK the damthang already, I mean really now! How many years do they need to think about thinking about thinking about picking a frigate. And my worry is, they waste these last 5-10 years, and wind up with an LCS lol. FREMM or HII Patrol Frigate, here we come baby!

    • Ctrot

      So long as they pick a real frigate, if the pick an LCS derivative I prefer they build one per decade.

      • Ed L

        I agree

  • DaSaint

    This is great news. BIW has the available capacity. But, I don’t see how this puts them in a favorable position vis-a-vis yard availability regarding winning the FFG(X) contract ( Navantia F-100 variant) come 2020 for a 2025ish launch of the first vessel. We all saw how problematic things were when they had the Zumwalts and Burkes running in parallel.

    So thus far…

    Austal USA has 2 additional Independence class LCS, through 2025, plus additional EPFs.

    BIW seems that they’ll be at or near capacity with Burkes to 2025.

    Lockheed Martin hasn’t received additional Freedom class, so they’re only occupied to 2022 or 2023.

    Fincantieri is vying for the Polar Security Cutter which would be built at Marinette…alongside the remaining Freedom class and Saudi MMS.

    Ingalls always has multiple classes under construction…and we haven’t seen their entrant…

  • We need to start replacing Ageis class cruisers as they are starting to show their age. Build the new class of new cruisers in limited numbers, while maintaining the Arleigh Burke class destroyers.

  • Ron8200

    Naming ships for members of Congress? Would prefer men who were navy hero’s.

    • Ctrot

      Agreed, Levin hardly seems apropo beside the likes of Petersen, Barnum, Lucas, Wilson and Basilone.

    • John33

      I think boy bands would be a good naming system. The USS One Direction(except for misnomers about the navigation capability of the ship, it does have a snappy name). The USS Backstreet Boys (because if you’re underway….it ain’t….well you get the picture) the USS Boys 2 Men could be a training ship. The USS Menudo, which would be a great ship for ports of call due to the obvious hangover remedies that would be inherent on such a vessel. And lastly the USS New Edition, which could be a proof of concepts ship for emerging technologies. You KNOW Mabus would have totally gone for this!

  • Hugh

    Note the stern wedge which improves the hull form and performance. Interesting, on a new vessel, how it looks like it’s an addition rather than having a fully integrated transom.

    • Marjus Plaku

      what, that belly fin protrusion between the two shafts? it seems new, interesting, more stability and better handling performance, or more space needed?

      • Hugh

        No, I think you are referring to the skeg, being the extension of the keel sitting on the dock blocks but finishing forward of the propellers. That also enhances directional stability.
        The stern wedge is at the waterline across the transom, which extends the length of the ship aft, (the red bit under the black boot-top.)

        • Duane

          There are no skegs on the ship in the pic. A skeg is an extension of the keel that flows into the rudderpost. The two rudders in the pic have no such skeg because each rudder sits immediately aft of the two screws.

          • Hugh

            Sure a “skeg” can extend aft to a centreline rudder, but the RAN still calls a short version a “skeg” where it ends forward of the propellers at what is called a “cutup” (which is where the aft-most keel block finishes).

    • publius_maximus_III

      I think it looks that way (like an add-on) because of the paint scheme — it angles downward, all below the waterline.

      • Hugh

        Yes, with the red antifouling and black boot-top paint scheme as shown. (Not so stand-out with all-black antifouling, eg on RAN ships.) The design is to angle down beyond the transom so as to deflect the top of the flow from the propellers and gain propulsive efficiency. Such stern wedges were retro-fitted to DDGs, FFGs etc in the 1990s, and have been fitted at newbuilds since. (Some ships have this downward feature already incorporated in the hull aft, eg the MEKO 200.)

        • publius_maximus_III

          Thinking of all those wasted gallons of fuel before such a simple improvement was invented. But as one famous SECDEF once observed, sometimes you don’t know what you don’t know.

    • USNVO

      There is actually a stern wedge as well as a stern flap, at least in USN vocabulary.

      All DDG-51 variants come with a stern wedge. That is integrated with the hull and, at least from what I have read, has about a 13 degree down angle. You can see how the boot topping appears to get deeper at the back of the ship. The stern flap is the part that looks like an addition and it was in fact a later addition to the design, being introduced in the Block IIA although stern flaps of various size and angle were trialed on earlier DDGs.

      Of note, although the stern wedge/flap increases efficiency at high speed, it actually decreases efficiency at low speed. However, since the ship burns a lot more fuel at cruising speed than going slow, it works out in the end. Technically, it also functions more as an anti-squat device, adding dynamic lift at the back of the hull, than increasing the propulsion efficiency although the end result is the same.

  • publius_maximus_III

    More destroyers, more destroyers, more DDG-51 Flight III Arleigh Burke destroyers!

  • Ser Arthur Dayne

    Merry Christmas to all! And I don’t care what ANYONE says, Arleigh Burkes are amazing looking… I remember going to Fleet Week in the mid-to-late 1990s (I can’t find the exact year… I know there was either a Wasp or Tarawa-class amphibious assault ship, and the USS Stout was there, along with one of the FFG-7s) — when I saw the ships lined up next to each other, and the DDG-55 dwarfed the FFG, what a sight. Getting a tour was amazing. Awesome ships. Can’t wait to see how the FLT-III shakes out (I don’t know I’m correct here, but have they actually released the specs formally? They’re building them but I can’t find exact details anywhere on them.)

  • ElmCityAle

    Why are these new DDGs being built with the old 20mm CIWS instead of the newer, more capable in every way SeaRAM mount?

    • Duane

      Are the old Phalanx systems being installed on the new destroyers rather than SeaRAM?

      The only published references I’ve seen to date concerning SeaRAM and DDG-51s described retrofiting SeaRAM to the four forward deployed Arleigh Burkes based out of Rota, Spain.

      It would make sense that the Navy would install SeaRAM on all of its new build surface warships rather than Phalanx. But perhaps, like so many other decisions about equipment on our ships, it may be budget limited, rather than a decision based upon capability. The SeaRAM is a much more capable system than Phalanx, with significantly longer range (the newest Block 2 RIM-116s are reported to have an engagement range of roughly 10 nm, but the actual range is classified), whereas Phalanx is only good to 2 miles. And SeaRAM is much more capable in engaging supersonic ASCMs and ASCMs that use radical maneuvers in terminal phase – something a gun can’t handle very well on either count.

      • ElmCityAle

        The photo above of “The future USS Rafael Peralta (DDG 115)” shows a rear 20mm CIWS mount, hence my inquiry. Seems short-sighted to continue installing the older gun-based system on the new DDGs.

        • Ed L

          unless it has an optical tracking device mounted on it so the CIWS can be operated against surface contacts. Like the Israeli’s have had on there vessels since the 80’s.

          • ElmCityAle

            Block 1B version with electro-optical tracking has been deployed for almost two decades at this point.

          • Ed L

            I been retired since 1993. The Navy was not using them at that time. But there is plenty of room forward to mount another CIWS and a SeaRam too

        • Secundius

          What it comes to is PRICE per Round. The Mk.149 20x102mm Tungsten Carbine Armor Piercing, Discarding Sabot costs ~$100.00/round times the typical load out of 1,550-rounds of the Mk.15 Mod.1 Phalanx/CiWS/R2D2. CiWS radar will detect at ~10,000-meters, but gun won’t engage threat targets until the threat comes within the effective range of the guns 1,490-meters. Look at any “YouTube Video” of gun in action against a “Surface Target”, and all the “Misses” because of the Roll of the Ship and Threat Target moving on “X-Y-Z” axis all at the Same Time…

  • Secundius

    …the Secretary of the Navy is the overseer of Names given to US Naval Ships, and those in USCG and NOAA service too. By Act of Congress in 1819, amended in 1858 to include “Steamships”, again 1861 of any ship of Foreign Purchase (i.e. Before the “Jones” Act). Again in 1898 to include Battleships and Coastal Ships (i.e. Littorals), again in 1903 to include “Heavy Guns”. And again in 1907 by Executive Order 549 (i.e. Theodore Roosevelt) to add the prefix of USS and USNS