Whats the difference between a Flight IIA and a new Flight III Burke?

[AICfan1989]

I hear they are going to build a new Flight III DDG-51 destoryer and have it enter service in 2016 to replace the CG(X) but what will be the difference between a Flight III and the current Flight IIA they have now?

[Belesari]

Originally Posted by AICfan1989

I hear they are going to build a new Flight III DDG-51 destoryer and have it enter service in 2016 to replace the CG(X) but what will be the difference between a Flight III and the current Flight IIA they have now?

The flight III will be longer and wider and have more VLS tubes and and defenses. As well as better systems all around.

Basically a super burke.

Hey when it works great why mess it up.

[AICfan1989]

Originally Posted by Belesari

The flight III will be longer and wider and have more VLS tubes and and defenses. As well as better systems all around.

Basically a super burke.

Hey when it works great why mess it up.

Thats great news but at what point is it still a destroyer? A Super Burke would be a cruiser for sure. But they are still calling it a destroyer? Isn't it going to have the new AMDR as well?

Would you happen to have a source saying the Flight III will be bigger and have more VLS?

[Juramentado]

Originally Posted by AICfan1989

Thats great news but at what point is it still a destroyer? A Super Burke would be a cruiser for sure. But they are still calling it a destroyer? Isn't it going to have the new AMDR as well?

Would you happen to have a source saying the Flight III will be bigger and have more VLS?

NAVSEA/PEOShips haven't posted specifications for the Flight IIIs other than a general declaration of AMDR being part of the asset. BIW in Maine is solely focused on pushing out the IIA class Michael Murphy which will be the last DDG before the Zumwalts. I believe BIW has the Zumwalt build exclusively. We can probably expect to see a lot of the cascade technology that will make it into the AB Flight III when the Zumwalts start coming off the drydocks - including decisions on major features such as the combat systems and any improvements/innovations to the armament suite. But the program for Flight III will NOT start with the last Zumwalt entering the water.

There will be a RESTART of Flight IIA improvements with DDG113 to about DDG115, mostly evolutionary, like SPY1D(V), MFTA sonar, LAMPS Mk3 Blk 2, and crew-automation like single watchstander. This is referred to as New Construction (NEWCON) to distinguish from pre-Zumwalt builds. The very last improved variant of the IIA will cover DDG116-DDG120 - it's not openly stated what technology will distinguish those last hulls but if you look at the what the Zumwalts are supposed to feature, it's a fair bet that those hulls will share things like hybrid electric drives and other commonalities between the two platforms.. DDG121 will be the real Flight III, at least according PEOShips today. AMDR has generally be defined as needing to be operational in FY2019 in order to meet that vessel production schedule. Suffice it to say, it will be a few more years before Flight III specs are really laid out from a developmental perspective, and a few more before that becomes public information.

Source - straight from PEOShips - "DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-Class Destroyer - New Construction Program" by CAPT Peter C. Lyle, DDG 51 Program Manager.

[AegisFC]

Originally Posted by AICfan1989

I hear they are going to build a new Flight III DDG-51 destoryer and have it enter service in 2016 to replace the CG(X) but what will be the difference between a Flight III and the current Flight IIA they have now?

Nothing is really publicly available at this time except a few reports about different radar and an emphasis on BMD.

[AegisFC]

Originally Posted by AICfan1989

Thats great news but at what point is it still a destroyer? A Super Burke would be a cruiser for sure. But they are still calling it a destroyer? Isn't it going to have the new AMDR as well?

Would you happen to have a source saying the Flight III will be bigger and have more VLS?

If it performs the traditional destroyer roles then it is still a destroyer regardless of size.

[Belesari]

Originally Posted by AegisFC

If it performs the traditional destroyer roles then it is still a destroyer regardless of size.

I think this has generaly been the consenses. Though it is still going to get argued about.

The new Japanese carrier now....i mean destroyer

[AICfan1989]

Originally Posted by AegisFC

If it performs the traditional destroyer roles then it is still a destroyer regardless of size.

OK but whats the difference in the mission performance between a cruiser and a destroyer if the Fight III will replace the Ticonderoga class?

Is it also possible that the new Flight III could carrty larger and wider missile tubes to carry a larger voulume as well as bigger weapons in general?

The DDG-1000 only has 20 MK 57 VLS but carries 80 missiles in a quad pack, if a Flight III version has 80-100 such tubes that means +320 standard missiles can be carried in theory.

[AegisFC]

Originally Posted by Belesari

I think this has generaly been the consenses. Though it is still going to get argued about.

The new Japanese carrier now....i mean destroyer

Part of the problem is that there are no set standards for what is a "destroyer", "cruiser" or other surface combatant. For example the USN in the 60's and 70's large surface combatants were called "Frigates" but were then changed to Guided Missile Cruisers later on (partially due to the so called "Cruiser Gap" and that no other navy called such large ships "Frigates"). Also the Ticonderoga class were originally Destroyers but when the Aegis Strike Cruiser was canceled and the Tico's were to be the primary carrier escort they were redesignated as cruisers (which fits since they have equipment redundancy and embarked command facilities that the Burkes do not have).

OK but whats the difference in the mission performance between a cruiser and a destroyer if the Fight III will replace the Ticonderoga class?

Is it also possible that the new Flight III could carrty larger and wider missile tubes to carry a larger voulume as well as bigger weapons in general?

The DDG-1000 only has 20 MK 57 VLS but carries 80 missiles in a quad pack, if a Flight III version has 80-100 such tubes that means +320 standard missiles can be carried in theory.

If the Flight III Burke really does replace the Tico's then they may no longer fall under the "Arleigh Burke Class" designation and will probably be called cruisers. The Spruance, Ticonderoga and Kidd's all shared the same hull form, engineering layout and mostly the same hull internal arrangement yet all 3 served in vastly different roles and thus were designated differently.

The DDG-1000's will have 20 Mk-57 modules of 4 cells each each giving you a total of 80 cells (the current Mk-41 VLS has 8 cells per modules) and you can quad pack ESSM only (the Mk-57 is bigger than the Mk-41 VLS but not big enough to be able to quad pack anything larger than a ESSM, the main advantage will be to hold larger BMD or land attack missiles) .

[Belesari]

Originally Posted by AegisFC

Part of the problem is that there are no set standards for what is a "destroyer", "cruiser" or other surface combatant. For example the USN in the 60's and 70's large surface combatants were called "Frigates" but were then changed to Guided Missile Cruisers later on (partially due to the so called "Cruiser Gap" and that no other navy called such large ships "Frigates"). Also the Ticonderoga class were originally Destroyers but when the Aegis Strike Cruiser was canceled and the Tico's were to be the primary carrier escort they were redesignated as cruisers (which fits since they have equipment redundancy and embarked command facilities that the Burkes do not have).



If the Flight III Burke really does replace the Tico's then they may no longer fall under the "Arleigh Burke Class" designation and will probably be called cruisers. The Spruance, Ticonderoga and Kidd's all shared the same hull form, engineering layout and mostly the same hull internal arrangement yet all 3 served in vastly different roles and thus were designated differently.

The DDG-1000's will have 20 Mk-57 modules of 4 cells each each giving you a total of 80 cells (the current Mk-41 VLS has 8 cells per modules) and you can quad pack ESSM only (the Mk-57 is bigger than the Mk-41 VLS but not big enough to be able to quad pack anything larger than a ESSM, the main advantage will be to hold larger BMD or land attack missiles) .

I wonder if they'll put the VLS launchers toward the outside of the hull instead of center line. I know they were supposed to do it on the Zummwalts it was supposed to act as a almost reactive armor.

[AICfan1989]

Originally Posted by AegisFC

(which fits since they have equipment redundancy and embarked command facilities that the Burkes do not have).

Do you think the Flight III Burkes will have embarked command facilities like the Ticos?

Originally Posted by AegisFC

The DDG-1000's will have 20 Mk-57 modules of 4 cells each each giving you a total of 80 cells (the current Mk-41 VLS has 8 cells per modules) and you can quad pack ESSM only (the Mk-57 is bigger than the Mk-41 VLS but not big enough to be able to quad pack anything larger than a ESSM, the main advantage will be to hold larger BMD or land attack missiles) .

Its unclear whether the new Flight III will use the MK-41 or the MK-57, but is it safe to say that the Flight III will probably carry more missiles than the Flight IIA Burke?