World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Arleigh Burke-class destroyer


Arleigh Burke-class destroyer

Arleigh Burke–class destroyer
A grey ship on the ocean during a cloudy day.
USS Halsey (DDG-97) transiting the Pacific Ocean in 2011
Class overview
Name: Arleigh Burke–class destroyer
Operators:  United States Navy
Preceded by: Kidd class
Succeeded by: Zumwalt class
Cost: US$1.843 billion (DDG 114–116, FY2011/12)[1]
Planned: 76[2]
Completed: 62
Active: 62
General characteristics
Type: Guided missile destroyer
  • Fully loaded:
  • Flight I: 8,315 t (8,184 long tons; 9,166 short tons)
  • Flight II: 8,400 t (8,300 long tons; 9,300 short tons)
  • Flight IIA: 9,200 t (9,100 long tons; 10,100 short tons)
  • Flight III: 9,800 t (9,600 long tons; 10,800 short tons)[3]
  • Flights I and II: 505 ft (154 m)
  • Flight IIA: 509 ft (155 m)
Beam: 66 ft (20 m)
Draft: 30.5 ft (9.3 m)
Installed power: 3 × Allison AG9140 Generators (2,500 kW each, 440 V)
Speed: In excess of 30 kn (56 km/h; 35 mph)
Range: 4,400 nmi (8,100 km) at 20 kn (37 km/h; 23 mph)
Boats & landing
craft carried:
2 × rigid hull inflatable boats
  • Flight I: 303 total[5]
  • Flight IIA: 23 officers, 300 enlisted[5]
Sensors and
processing systems:
Electronic warfare
& decoys:
Aircraft carried:
Aviation facilities:
  • Flights I and II: Flight deck only, but LAMPS III electronics installed on landing deck for coordinated DDG-51/helo ASW operations
  • Flight IIA onwards: Flight deck and enclosed hangars for two MH-60R LAMPS III helicopters

The Arleigh Burke class of guided missile destroyers (DDGs) is the United States Navy's first class of destroyer built around the Aegis Combat System and the SPY-1D multi-function Passive electronically scanned array radar. The class is named for Admiral Arleigh Burke, the most famous American destroyer officer of World War II, and later Chief of Naval Operations. The class leader, USS Arleigh Burke, was commissioned during Admiral Burke's lifetime.

They were designed as multi-role destroyers[8] to fit the AAW (Anti-Aircraft Warfare) role with their powerful Aegis radar and surface-to-air missiles; ASW (Anti-submarine warfare) role, with their towed sonar array, anti-submarine rockets, and ASW helicopter; ASUW (Anti-surface warfare) role with their Harpoon (missile) launcher; and strategic land strike role with their Tomahawk (missile)s. Some versions of the class no longer have the towed sonar, or Harpoon missile launcher. Their hull and superstructure were designed to have a reduced radar cross section.[9] The first ship of the class was commissioned on 4 July 1991. With the decommissioning of the last Spruance-class destroyer, Cushing, on 21 September 2005, the Arleigh Burke–class ships became the U.S. Navy's only active destroyers; the class has the longest production run for any post-World War II U.S. Navy surface combatant.[10] Besides the 62 vessels of this class (comprising 21 of Flight I, 7 of Flight II and 34 of Flight IIA) in service by 2013, up to a further 42 (of Flight III) have been envisaged.

With an overall length of 505 feet (154 m) to 509 feet (155 m), displacement ranging from 8,315 to 9,200 tons, and weaponry including over 90 missiles, the Arleigh Burke–class ships are larger and more heavily armed than most previous ships classified as guided missile cruisers.[11]


  • Characteristics 1
  • Development 2
    • Modernization 2.1
    • Production restarted and further development 2.2
    • Future replacement 2.3
  • Operational history 3
  • Contractors 4
  • Ships in class 5
  • See also 6
  • Notes 7
  • References 8
  • Further reading 9
  • External links 10


USS Cole (DDG-67) and two other Arleigh Burke–class vessels docked at Naval Station Norfolk in July 2009.
In this image of USS Fitzgerald (DDG-62), a Flight I ship, note TACTAS (Tactical Towed Array Sonar) in center of fantail, lack of helicopter hangars, and design of stacks.
In this image of USS Mustin (DDG-89), a Flight IIA ship, note lack of TACTAS in center of fantail, aft helicopter hangars, Phalanx CIWS mount and different design of exhaust stacks.
Starboard side of USS Momsen (DDG-92), note torpedo tubes mounted on missile deck vs earlier mounted amidships. Also note superstructure changes to accommodate a Remote Minehunting System (RMS) holding bay.
USS Forrest Sherman (DDG-98) in 2007, test firing her new 5"/62 caliber Mark 45 Mod 4 gun, located forward of her 32-cell missile pack module.

The ships of the Arleigh Burke-class are among the largest destroyers built in the United States. Only the Spruance and Kidd classes were longer (563 feet (172 m)), and the Zumwalt is longer yet (600 feet (180 m)). The Arleigh Burke class are multi-mission ships with a "combination of... an advanced anti-submarine warfare system, land attack cruise missiles, ship-to-ship missiles, and advanced anti-aircraft missiles,"[12] The larger Ticonderoga-class ships were constructed on Spruance-class hullforms, but are designated as cruisers due to their radically different mission and weapons systems. The Arleigh Burke class on the other hand were designed with a new, large, water-plane area-hull form characterized by a wide flaring bow which significantly improves sea-keeping ability. The hull form is designed to permit high speed in high sea states.[9]

The Arleigh Burke‍ '​s designers incorporated lessons learned from the Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruisers; with the Arleigh Burke class, the U.S. Navy also returned to all-steel construction. An earlier generation had combined a steel hull with an innovative superstructure made of lighter aluminum to reduce topweight, but the lighter metal proved vulnerable to cracking. Aluminum is also less fire-resistant than steel;[13] a 1975 fire aboard USS Belknap gutted her aluminum superstructure.[14] Battle damage to Royal Navy ships exacerbated by their aluminum superstructures during the 1982 Falklands War supported the decision to use steel. Another lesson from the Falklands War[12] led the navy to protect the ship's vital spaces with double-spaced steel armor (creating a buffer for modern rockets), and kevlar spall liners.

The Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers were deemed too expensive to continue building and too difficult to further upgrade. The angled rather than traditional vertical surfaces and the tripod mainmast of the Arleigh Burke design are stealth techniques,[15][16] which make the ship more difficult to detect, in particular by anti-ship missiles.

A Collective Protection System makes the Arleigh Burke class the first U.S. warships designed with an air-filtration system against nuclear, biological and chemical warfare.[17] Other NBC defenses include a "countermeasure wash down system".[18]

Their AEGIS Combat System differs from a traditional rotating radar that mechanically rotates 360 degrees for each sweep scan of the airspace. Instead, Aegis uses a passive electronically scanned arrays, which allow continual tracking of targets simultaneous with area scans. The system's computer control also allows centralization of the previously separate tracking and targeting functions. The system is also resistant to electronic counter-measures. Their standalone Harpoon anti-ship missile launchers give them an anti-ship capability with a range in excess of 64 nautical miles (119 km; 74 mi)[9] With the retirement of the Tomahawk anti-ship missile variant, only Arleigh Burke-class ships before Flight IIA versions are well-equipped for anti-surface warfare with Harpoon launchers. Others are not, but are loaded with Standard Missiles in their vertical launch cells capable of an anti-ship mode, though they have limited range and damage potential.[19] "The 5-inch/54 caliber Mark 45 gun, in conjunction with the Mark 34 Gun Weapon System, is an anti-ship weapon which can also be used for close-in air contacts or to support forces ashore with Naval Gun-Fire Support (NGF), with a range of up to 20 miles (32 km) and capable of firing 20 rounds per minute." The class's RIM-7 Sea Sparrow/RIM-162 ESSM missiles provide point defense against missiles and aircraft while the Standard Missile-3 provides area anti-aircraft defense. Additionally the ship has an electronics warfare suite that provides passive detection and decoy countermeasures.[9]

The class's Light Airborne Multipurpose System, or LAMPS helicopter system improves the ship's capabilities against submarines and surface ships, a helicopter able to serve as a platform to monitor submarines and surface ships, and launch torpedoes and missiles against them, as well as being able to support ground assaults with machine guns and Hellfire anti-armor guided missiles.[20] The helicopters also serve in a utility role, able to perform ship replenishment, search and rescue, medical evacuation, communications relay, and naval gunfire spotting and controlling.

Arleigh Burke–class destroyers have many combat systems. Burkes have the Navy's latest anti-submarine combat system with active sonar, a towed sonar array, and anti-submarine rockets. They support strategic land strikes with their VLS launched Tomahawks.[9] They are able to detect anti-ship mines at a range of 1400 yards.[21]

So vital has the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMD) role of the class become that all ships of the class are being updated with BMD capability.[22][23] Burke production is being restarted in place of additional Zumwalt-class destroyers.[24]


In 1980, the U.S. Navy initiated design studies with seven contractors. By 1983 the number of competitors had been reduced to three: Bath Iron Works, Todd Shipyards and Ingalls Shipbuilding.[17] On 3 April 1985 Bath Iron Works received a US$321.9 million contract to build the first of class, USS Arleigh Burke.[25] Gibbs & Cox was awarded the contract to be the lead ship design agent.[26] The total cost of the first ship was put at US$1.1 billion, the other US$778 million being for the ship's weapons systems.[25] She was laid down by the Bath Iron Works at Bath, Maine, on 6 December 1988, and launched on 16 September 1989 by Mrs. Arleigh Burke. The Admiral himself was present at her commissioning ceremony on 4 July 1991, held on the waterfront in downtown Norfolk, Virginia.

Profile of Flight IIA Arleigh Burke-class destroyer.

The "Flight IIA Arleigh Burke" ships have several new features, beginning with the USS Oscar Austin (DDG-79). Among the changes are the addition of two hangars for ASW helicopters, and a new, longer Mark 45 Mod 4 5-inch/62-caliber naval gun (fitted on USS Winston S. Churchill (DDG-81) and later ships). Later Flight IIA ships starting with USS Mustin (DDG-89) have a modified funnel design that buries the funnels within the superstructure as a signature-reduction measure. TACTAS towed array sonar was omitted from Flight IIA ships and they also lack Harpoon missile launchers. Ships from DDG-68 to DDG-84 have AN/SLQ-32 antennas that resemble V3 configuration similar to those deployed on Ticonderoga-class cruisers, while the remainder have V2 variants externally resembling those deployed on some Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates. V3 has an active electronic countermeasures component while V2 is passive only. AN/SLQ-32 is being upgraded under the Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP), the first SEWIP Block 2 upgrades were installed in 2014 with full-rate production scheduled for mid-2015.[27] A number of Flight IIA ships were constructed without a Phalanx CIWS because of the planned Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile, but later the Navy decided to retrofit all IIA ships to carry at least one Phalanx CIWS by 2013.[28]

USS Pinckney, USS Momsen, USS Chung-Hoon, USS Nitze, USS James E. Williams and USS Bainbridge[29] have superstructure differences to accommodate the Remote Mine-hunting System (RMS). Mk 32 torpedo tubes were moved to the missile deck from amidships as well.


The U.S. Navy began a modernization program for the Arleigh Burke class aimed at improving the gun systems on the ships in an effort to address congressional concerns over the retirement of the Iowa-class battleships. This modernization was to include an extension of the range of the 5-inch (127 mm) guns on the flight I Arleigh Burke–class destroyers (USS Arleigh Burke to USS Ross) with extended range guided munitions (ERGMs) that would have given the guns a range of 40 nautical miles (74 km).[30][31][32] However, the ERGM was cancelled in 2008.[33]

The modernization program is designed to provide a comprehensive mid-life upgrade to ensure that the class remains effective. Reduced manning, increased mission effectiveness, and a reduced total cost including construction, maintenance, and operation are the goals of the modernization program. Modernization technologies will be integrated during new construction of DDG-111 and 112, then retrofitted into DDG flight I and II ships during in-service overhaul periods.[34] The first phase will update the hull, mechanical, and electrical systems while the second phase will introduce an open architecture computing environment (OACE). The result will be improved capability in both ballistic missile defense (BMD) and littoral combat.[35][36] By 2018 all Burkes homeported in the Western Pacific will have upgraded anti-submarine systems, including the new AN/SQR-20 Multifunction Towed Array.[37]

The Navy is also upgrading the ships' ability to process data. Beginning with USS Spruance, the Navy is installing an internet protocol (IP) based data backbone, which enhances the ship's ability to handle video. Spruance is the first destroyer to be fitted with the Boeing Company's gigabit Ethernet data multiplex system (GEDMS).[38]

In July 2010 BAE Systems announced that it had been awarded a contract to modernize 11 ships.[39] In May 2014 Sam LaGrone reported that 21 of the 28 Flight I/II Burkes would not receive a mid-life upgrade that included electronics and Aegis Baseline 9 software for SM-6 compatibility, instead they would retain the basic BMD 3.6.1 software in a US$170m upgrade concentrating on mechanical systems and on some ships, the anti-submarine suite.[40] Seven Flight I ships - DDG 51-53, 57, 61, 65, 69 - will get the full US$270m Baseline 9 upgrade.[40] Deputy of surface warfare Dave McFarland said that this change was due to the budget cuts in the Budget Control Act of 2011.[41]

In 2016, the Navy will begin the outfitting of 34 Flight IIA Arleigh Burke vessels with a hybrid-electric drive (HED) to lower fuel costs. While the Burke’s four LM-2500 gas turbines, which are most efficient at high speeds, an electric motor is to be attached to the main reduction gear to turn the drive shaft. This motor shall propel the ship at speeds under 13 knots, such as during ballistic missile defense or maritime security operations; use of the HED for half the time could extend time on station by 2.5 days before refueling. Two vessels are planned to be outfitted in 2016, with the rest upgraded at a rate of four per year.[42]

Production restarted and further development

The class was scheduled to be replaced by Zumwalt-class destroyers beginning in 2020,[43] but an increasing threat from both long- and short-range missiles caused the Navy to restart production of the Arleigh Burke class and consider placing littoral combat mission modules on the new ships.[44][45]

In April 2009 the Navy announced a plan that limited the Zumwalt class to three units while ordering another three Arleigh Burke–class ships from both Bath Iron Works and Ingalls Shipbuilding.[24] In December 2009 Northrop Grumman received a $170.7 million letter contract for DDG-113 long-lead-time materials.[46] Shipbuilding contracts for DDG-113 to DDG-115 were awarded in mid-2011 for US$679.6m–$783.6m;[47] these do not include government-furnished equipment such as weapons and sensors which will take the average cost of the FY2011/12 ships to US$1,842.7m per vessel.[1] DDG-113 to DDG-115 will be "restart" ships, similar to previous Flight IIA ships, but including modernization features such as Open Architecture Computing Environment; DDG-116 to DDG-121 will be "Technology Insertion" ships with elements of Flight III.[48] Flight III proper will begin with the second ship procured in 2016, either DDG-123 or DDG-124.[49]

Flight III ships, construction starting in FY2016 in place of the canceled CG(X) program, have various design improvements including radar antennas of mid-diameter increased to 14 feet (4.3 m) from the previous 12 feet (3.7 m).[50] These Air and Missile Defense Radars (AMDR) use digital beamforming, instead of the earlier Passive Electronically Scanned Array radars.[51]

However, costs for the Flight III ships increased rapidly as expectations and requirements for the program have grown. In particular, this was due to the changing requirements needed to carry the proposed Air and Missile Defense Radar system required for the ships' ballistic missile defense role.[52] The Government Accountability Office found that the design of the Flight IIIs was based on "a significantly reduced threat environment from other Navy analyses" and that the new ships would be "at best marginally effective". The U.S. Navy disagrees with the GAO findings, claiming the DDG-51 hull is "absolutely" capable of fitting a large enough radar to meet requirements. Installation of the AMDR would require double the power and double the cooling, but there is room to fit what is needed inside the hull.[53]

In spite of the production restart, the U.S. Navy is expected to fall short of its requirement for 94 missile-defense-capable destroyer and cruiser platforms starting in FY 2025 and continuing past the end of the 30-year planning window. While this is a new requirement as of 2011, and the U.S. Navy has never had so many large missile-armed surface combatants, the relative success of the Aegis ballistic missile defense system has shifted this national security requirement onto the U.S. Navy. The shortfall will arise as older platforms that have been refitted to be missile-defense-capable (particularly the cruisers) are retired in bulk before new destroyers are planned to be built.[54]

The U.S. Navy was considering extending the acquisition of Arleigh Burke–class destroyers into the 2040s, according to revised procurement tables sent to Congress, which have the U.S. Navy procuring Flight IV ships from 2032 through 2041.[55] However this was canceled to cover the cost of the Ohio Replacement Submarine, with the air defense commander role retained on one cruiser per carrier battle group.[56]

Future replacement

USS Michael Murphy was originally intended to be the last of the Arleigh Burke class. However, with reduction of the Zumwalt-class production, the U.S. Navy requested new DDG-51-class ships.[57] Long-lead materials contracts were awarded to Northrop Grumman in December 2009 for DDG-113 and in April 2010 for DDG-114.[58] General Dynamics received a long-lead materials contract for DDG-115 in February 2010.[59][60] It is anticipated that in FY2012 or FY2013, the U.S. Navy will commence detailed work for a Flight III design and request 24 ships to be built from 2016 to 2031.[61] In May 2013, a total of 77 Burke-class ships was planned.[62] The Flight III variant is in the design phase as of 2013. In June 2013, the U.S. Navy awarded $6.2 billion in destroyer contracts.[63] Up to 42 Flight III ships may be procured by the U.S. Navy with the first ship entering service in 2023.[64]

In April 2014, the U.S. Navy began the early stages of developing a new destroyer to replace the Arleigh Burke–class called the "Future Surface Combatant". The new class is expected to enter service in the early 2030s and initially serve alongside the 22 Flight III DDGs. No hull design or shape has been speculated yet, although the destroyer class will incorporate emerging technologies like lasers, on-board power-generation systems, increased automation, and next-generation weapons, sensors, and electronics. They will leverage technologies in use on other platforms such as the Zumwalt-class destroyer, Littoral Combat Ship, and Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers. The Future Surface Combatant may place importance on the Zumwalt-class destroyer's electric drive system that propels the ship while generating 58 megawatts of on-board electrical power, levels required to operate future directed energy weapons. Laser weapon systems are likely to become more prominent to engage threats without using missiles that could potentially cost more than the target it is engaging. Less costly weapon systems may help keep the destroyer class from becoming too expensive. Initial requirements for the Future Surface Combatant will emphasize lethality and survivability, as well as being able to continue to protect aircraft carriers. The ships also have to be modular to allow for inexpensive upgrades of weaponry, electronics, computing, and sensors over time as threats evolve.[65]

Operational history

Arleigh Burke–class destroyer USS Cole was damaged on 12 October 2000 in Aden, Yemen while docked, by an attack in which an apparently shaped charge of 200–300 kg in a boat was placed against the hull and detonated by suicide bombers, killing 17 crew members. The ship was repaired, and returned to duty in 2001.

In October 2011 it was announced that four Arleigh Burke–class destroyers would be forward-deployed in Europe to support the NATO missile defence system. The ships, to be based at Naval Station Rota, Spain, were named in February 2012, as Ross, Donald Cook, Porter and Carney.[66] By reducing travel times to station, this forward deployment will allow for six other destroyers to be shifted from the Atlantic in support of the Pivot to East Asia.[67] Russia has threatened to quit the New START treaty over this deployment, calling it a threat to their nuclear deterrent.[68]


Ships in class

See also


  1. ^ a b O'Rourke, Ronald (19 April 2011). "Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved 23 October 2011.  Since 1 and 2 ships are procured in alternate years and the "1 in a year" ships cost more, the fairest estimate of unit price comes from averaging three ships across two years. US$50-300m is spent on long lead-time items in the year before the main procurement of each ship. DDG-114 and DDG-115 together cost US$577.2m (FY2010) + US$2,922.2m (FY2011) = US$3,499.4m,(p25) and DDG-116 cost US$48m (FY2011) + US$1,980.7m (FY2012) = US$2,028.7m,(p12) making an average for the three ships of US$1,847.2m. DDG-113 cost US$2,234.4m.(p6)
  2. ^ f
  3. ^ "Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress".  
  4. ^ "LM2500 Gas Turbine Engine". FAS Military Analysis Network. Retrieved 28 April 2014. 
  5. ^ a b "US Navy Ship - Destroyer". United States Navy. Retrieved 16 June 2014. 
  6. ^ pamphlet 09-MDA-4298 (4 MAR 09). 
  7. ^ John Pike. "DDG-51 Arleigh Burke - Flight IIA". Retrieved 27 October 2015. 
  8. ^ url= |title=US Navy Ship - Destroyer |publisher=United States Navy
  9. ^ a b c d e "DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class". Retrieved 1 August 2015. 
  10. ^ After 2-plus decades, Navy destroyer breaks record
  11. ^ "Northrop Grumman-Built William P. Lawrence Christened; Legacy of Former POW Honored". Northrop Grumman, 17 April 2010.
  12. ^ a b "The Arleigh Burke: Linchpin of the Navy". Retrieved 27 October 2015. 
  13. ^ "Navy Reverting To Steel In Shipbuilding After Cracks In Aluminum". The New York Times, 11 August 1987.
  14. ^ Section F.7: Aluminum in warship construction., 30 March 2000.
  15. ^ Gardiner and Chumbley 1995, p.592.
  16. ^ Baker 1998, p.1020.
  17. ^ a b Biddle, Wayne (28 February 1984). "The dust has settled on the Air Force's Great Engine". The New York Times. 
  18. ^ "DVIDS - Images - Countermeasure washdown system test". DVIDS. Retrieved 27 October 2015. 
  19. ^ U.S. Navy’s Next Bid for Ship to Ship Combat -, 6 June 2013
  20. ^ "Federation Of American Scientists -". Federation Of American Scientists. Retrieved 27 October 2015. 
  21. ^ "Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) DDG 51"
  22. ^ Sea-Based Ballistic Missile Defense – Background and Issues for Congress
  23. ^ Galrahn (23 September 2009). "Fact Check – Technicals of AEGIS BMD". Information Dissemination. Retrieved 27 December 2011. 
  24. ^ a b Contractors Agree on Deal to Build Stealth Destroyer. Navy Times, 8 April 2009.
  25. ^ a b "Maine shipbuilder gets Navy contract for a new destroyer". The New York Times. 3 April 1985. 
  26. ^ "History of Gibbs & Cox".  
  27. ^ "CNO's Position Report: 2014" (pdf). US Navy. 4 November 2014. Retrieved 2014-11-26. 
  28. ^ a b Analyst: DDGs without CIWS vulnerable. Navy Times. 16 September 2008.
  29. ^ DN-SD-07-24674 (up to DDG-96)
  30. ^ Taken from the National Defense Authorization Act of 2007, pages 67–68 Archived 2 November 2006 at the Wayback Machine
  31. ^ Taken from the National Defense Authorization Act of 2007, p. 193 Archived 25 October 2006 at the Wayback Machine
  32. ^ -class destroyersArleigh BurkeFederation of American Scientists report on the MK 45 5-inch gun and ammunition payload for the US
  33. ^ Navy ends ERGM funding Navy Times
  34. ^ Dan Petty. "The US Navy -- Fact File: Destroyers - DDG". Retrieved 27 October 2015. 
  35. ^ DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-Class Aegis Guided-Missile Destroyer Modernization
  36. ^ "DRS Technologies Wins Contract to Continue its Support for Arleigh Burke-Class Guided Missile Destroyers Modernization Program". December 4, 2013. 
  37. ^  
  38. ^ "Boeing: Boeing Deploys Gigabit Ethernet Data Multiplex System on USS Spruance". 24 October 2011. Retrieved 27 December 2011. 
  39. ^ "BAE to Modernize Up to 11 Norfolk-based Destroyers". Archived from the original on 7 August 2010. Retrieved 3 August 2010. 
  40. ^ a b LaGrone, Sam (27 May 2014). "Navy Quietly Downscales Destroyer Upgrades". USNI News. 
  41. ^ LaGrone, Sam (3 June 2014). "Navy Altered Destroyer Upgrades Due to Budget Pressure, Demand for Ships". (U.S. NAVAL INSTITUTE). Retrieved 3 June 2014. 
  42. ^ Navy Set to Install Hybrid Electric Drives in Destroyer Fleet Staring [sic] Next Year -, 23 September 2015
  43. ^ "Resource Implications of the Navy’s 2008 Shipbuilding Plan". Congressional Budget Office. 23 March 2007. 
  44. ^ "Missile Threat Helped Drive DDG Cut". Defense News. 4 August 2008. Retrieved 27 December 2011. 
  45. ^ "Navy's future linked to flexible weapons: chief". Reuters. Retrieved 27 October 2015. 
  46. ^ "Contracts for Wednesday, December 02, 2009". Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs), U.S. Department of Defense. 2 December 2009. Retrieved 23 October 2011.  Contract N00024-10-C-2308.
  47. ^ "DDG 51 Class Ship Construction Contract Awards Announced". Naval Sea Systems Command Office of Corporate Communication. 26 September 2011. Retrieved 23 October 2011. 
  48. ^ Lyle, Peter C. (2010). "DDG 51 Arleigh Burke Burke-Class Destroyer – New Construction Program" (PDF). Naval Sea Systems Command. p. 17. Retrieved 23 October 2011.  Presentation summarising the restart program.
  49. ^ LaGrone, Sam (4 June 2013). "Navy Awards $6.1 Billion in Nine Destroyer Deal". USNI News. Retrieved 19 September 2015. 
  50. ^ RL32109 Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress. CRS, 26 February 2010.
  51. ^ GAO-10-388SP, "Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs". GAO, 30 March 2010
  52. ^ Fabey, Michael. "Potential DDG-51 Flight III Growth Alarms." Aviation Week, 10 June 2011.
  53. ^ Freedberg, Sydney J. Jr. "Navy Bets On Arleigh Burkes To Sail Until 2072; 40 Years Afloat For Some." 5 October 2012.
  54. ^ O'Rourke, Ronald. "CRS-RL32109 Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress." Congressional Research Service, 2 March 2012.
  55. ^ "US proposes Flight IV Arleigh Burke and life extension for command ships". Jane's Information Group, 14 June 2011.
  56. ^ LaGrone, Sam (14 July 2014). "Navy Cancelled New Destroyer Flight Due to Ohio Replacement Submarine Costs". (U.S. NAVAL INSTITUTE). Retrieved 14 July 2014. 
  57. ^ RL32109, Navy DDG-1000 and DDG-51 Destroyer Programs: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress. Congressional Research Service, 23 December 2009.
  58. ^ "Northrop Grumman awarded $114M contract; Navy orders 30th DDG 51 ship",, 24 April 2010.
  59. ^ "General Dynamics wins over $900 mln in Navy deals", Reuters, 26 February 2010.
  60. ^ "BIW to purchase DDG 115 material",, 2 March 2010.
  61. ^ CRS RL32109 Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress 14 June 2010
  62. ^ "Department of Defense Announces Selected Acquisition Report".  
  63. ^ "Contract View". Retrieved 27 October 2015. 
  64. ^ "Now Hear This - The Right Destroyer at the Right Time". Retrieved 27 October 2015. 
  65. ^ Navy Makes Plans for New Destroyer for 2030s -, 9 April 2014
  66. ^ Navy, Navy Names Forward Deployed Ships to Rota, Spain
  67. ^ "NavWeek: Keeping Asian Waters Pacific."
  68. ^ "Russia may quit START III after US deploys destroyer in Europe". The Voice of Russia. 2 February 2014. Retrieved 31 January 2014. 
  69. ^ "Future USS John Finn (DDG 113) Launched". US Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA). 30 March 2015. 
  70. ^ "Ingalls Shipbuilding Authenticates the Keel on Aegis Destroyer Ralph Johnson (DDG 114)". Huntington Ingalls Industries news release. 23 September 2014. Retrieved 3 December 2014. 
  71. ^ "General Dynamics Bath Iron Works Lays Keel of DDG 115, Starts Fabrication on DDG 118" (PDF). GD Bath Iron Works. 30 October 2014. Retrieved 2 October 2011. 
  72. ^ This story was written Naval Sea Systems Command Public Affairs. "Future USS Paul Ignatius Begins Fabrication". Retrieved 27 October 2015. 
  73. ^ This story was written Team Ships Public Affairs. "Fabrication Begins for the Future USS Daniel Inouye". Retrieved 27 October 2015. 
  74. ^ This story was written Team Ships Public Affairs. "Future USS Delbert D. Black (DDG 119) Begins Fabrication". Retrieved 27 October 2015. 


  • Baker, A.D. The Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World 1998–1999. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press, 1998. ISBN 1-55750-111-4.
  • Gardiner, Robert and Chumbley, Stephen. Conway's All The World's Fighting Ships 1947–1995. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press, 1995. ISBN 1-55750-132-7.

Further reading

  • Sanders, Michael S. (1999). The Yard: Building a Destroyer at the Bath Iron Works. New York: HarperCollins. .) Bath Iron Works (DDG-75) at Donald Cook (Describes the construction of  

External links

  • -class destroyersArleigh Burke at Destroyer History Foundation
  • unit list on globalsecurity.orgArleigh Burke
  • -class (Aegis) page on naval-technology.comArleigh Burke
  • Arleigh Burke Flight I & Flight II Class destroyer- United States Navy on
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.