Shipbucket

First ever pics I've seen about conceptual design of Arleigh-Burke III
(Official view, by Raytheon, about AMDR radar on Burke DDG)


Two personnals comments
- Phalanx 20mm gun CIWS really oudated/obsolete by 2021+ (Introduction of 1st Flight III into the US Fleet)
- SPG-49 missile illuminators useless (illumination provided by phased array radar ?)

Comments ? others stuffs about Flight III ?

I thought SPY-3 wasn't selected? also, 4 VSR and 3 SPY-3? (both have coverage of 120 degrees, if I'm not wrong)

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

There's clearly an SPG-49 right at the top edge of the picture - which really only makes it even more confusing, as the USN's been trying to move away from separate illuminators for a while now.

AN/SPG-62.

Probably as a backup, and could very well provide higher precision and range for a given power level.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Somehow it seems wrong to built a new ship based on a hull design which is over 35 years old by that time.

_________________
“The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person who is doing it.”

Will be interesting to see the first one hit the water.

I'm curious as to why you say that. The fact is - The hull design works, and works well. Why change what doesn't need changing if the systems still fit?

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

US Navy plans call for procuring 24 Flight III DDG-51s between FY2016 and FY2031 (aka. commissioned by 2021-2035, to remain in service until 2060-2075)
The problem ?

Would a Flight III DDG-51 have sufficient growth margin for a projected 35- or 40-year service life ?
Skeptics could argue that there are uncertainties involved in projecting what types of capabilities ships might need to have to remain mission effective over a 35- or 40-year life, and that building expensive new warships with relatively modest growth margins consequently would be imprudent. The Flight III DDG-51’s growth margin, they could argue, could make it more likely that the ships would need to be removed from service well before the end of their projected service lives due to an inability to accept modifications needed to preserve their mission effectiveness. Skeptics could argue that it might not be possible to fit the Flight III DDG-51 in the future with an electromagnetic rail gun (EMRG) or a high-power (200 kW to 300 kW) solid state laser (SSL), because the ship would lack the electrical power or cooling capacity required for such a weapon. Skeptics could argue that EMRGs and/or high-power SSLs could be critical to the Navy’s ability years from now to affordably counter large numbers of enemy anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs) and anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs) that might be fielded by a wealthy and determined adversary. Skeptics could argue that procuring Flight III DDG-51s could delay the point at which EMRGs or high-power SSLs could be introduced into the cruiser-destroyer force, and reduce for many years the portion of the cruiser-destroyer force that could ultimately be backfitted with these weapons. This, skeptics could argue, might result in an approach to AAW and BMD on cruisers and destroyers that might ultimately be unaffordable for the Navy to sustain in a competition against a wealthy and determined adversary.

Some others concerns about Arleigh Burke Flight III
- Main gun: a 127mm/Mk-45 or a newer 155 AGS
(The 155 AGS was much better than the older 5" mount, but infortunatly more bigger = a need to lenghtened the hull by up to 10 meters (if you want to save a number of forward VLS...) = additionnal cost)
- VLS: Mk-41 or the newer MK-57 model (same on DDG 1000 Zumwalt) ?
- Automation problem (140 sailors on the Zumwalt; 240 to 300+ on a Burke's)

For a class (or sub-class ) of Destroyers intended to operate in the 2020's-2060's era, the LATEST technologies are now obligatory:
- AMDR
- 155 AGS
- Mk-57 VLS
- Full UAV/UUV
- Advanced crew reduction (from +/- 260/300 for a Burke to +/- 140/180 sailors on the next generation of destroyers)

The problem is that the current Burke-hull may be too small/ageing

Moreover, designing a enlarged Burke (In fact, similar than the South-Korean "King Sejong the Great class"), this may be as expensive as designing a radically new destroyer.

The Flight 3 Burkes are getting a massive interior redesign.

Where did you get that middle paragraph, because it doesn't read like most of your work.

The other fact is the Flight 3 Burke design isn't finished yet, and could get a few more revisions before it actually goes into production.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Dubious...

...and redesign the interior of an old design...hmmm ...At this "level", it is better to design a completely new ship
Yep, but I agree with these analysis
Obviously that the "design work" was not completed (expected to begin by FY 2012 and completed around ? FY 2015 ?)

But doing something new with something old, it is a rehash...