this may be seen as a silly question by some of you but its been on my mind for sometime (not high up there though but i thought i would ask anyway). The Flight III burkes are slated to be the replacement of the CG(X) program. Now do you think they will get the CG designation (like what happened with the improved Spruance class that became the Ticonderoga class) or just stay with the DDG designation (which would be interesting since it would mean that eventually the U.S. would have no "cruisers")
Flight III Burkes
- Thread starter Markos13
- Start date
Could be, but what's in a name? I could care less whether the Flight III are called destroyers or cruisers. Frankly, I am of the opinion that the LCS should have been called frigates. Some tend to think the LCS is something less than a frigate, while I believe the LCS is a very capable ASW escort. While the rest of the world consider frigates front line warships, the US Navy has never considered frigates as front line warships.
The ship classifications have been very blurred lately. For example, the Australians consider their new Hobart class as destroyers, whereas very similar Spanish ships are called frigates... There are other examples I could mention but won't...
F-15 Eagle
New Member
Well the current Flight IIA are already close the cruiser size(9200 tons) and the new Flight III will be even larger(10,000-11,000 tons) so yes they will be cruisers no doubt but they will probably retain the DDG name even though they are still missile cruisers.
I'm really looking forward to seeing what weapons setup will be for the flight III DDG-51.
Burke Flight III
I think the Flight III Burkes will keep the DDG designation. The classification of ships is a very blurry and unscripted system. Different types of ships and the roles they perform are becoming merged and more ships are capable of multirole duties. I think in the future the basic, blue water warship will be a multirole platform classified by size, rather than role. There could be 'small, medium and large'. All of which can perform a variety of duties, both defensive and offensive, fighting sub-surface, surface and air threats as well as missile defense and launching strikes against land targets far away, shore bombardment, intelligence gathering, electronic wafare and launching and controlling unmanned assets.
I think the Flight III Burkes will keep the DDG designation. The classification of ships is a very blurry and unscripted system. Different types of ships and the roles they perform are becoming merged and more ships are capable of multirole duties. I think in the future the basic, blue water warship will be a multirole platform classified by size, rather than role. There could be 'small, medium and large'. All of which can perform a variety of duties, both defensive and offensive, fighting sub-surface, surface and air threats as well as missile defense and launching strikes against land targets far away, shore bombardment, intelligence gathering, electronic wafare and launching and controlling unmanned assets.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
They should max out the DDG frame
IMO a good Ticonderoga replacement Flight III Burke should have the following:
* Lengthen the hull by 56 feet.
* 10,000 tons displacement.
* 2x64 cell VLS tubes for a total of 128 SM-2 and Tomahawk cruise missiles up from the current 96 cell Flight IIA.
* Add a larger and much more powerful air and missile defense radar such as the AMDR and increase the radar diameter to 14 feet up from 12 currently.
* Reduce costs.
* Reduce crew size.
This is what a Flight III DDG should look like.
IMO a good Ticonderoga replacement Flight III Burke should have the following:
* Lengthen the hull by 56 feet.
* 10,000 tons displacement.
* 2x64 cell VLS tubes for a total of 128 SM-2 and Tomahawk cruise missiles up from the current 96 cell Flight IIA.
* Add a larger and much more powerful air and missile defense radar such as the AMDR and increase the radar diameter to 14 feet up from 12 currently.
* Reduce costs.
* Reduce crew size.
This is what a Flight III DDG should look like.
Last edited:
I would also add more space for Flag functions as the Burkes are meant to be quite cramped
What? A radar diameter of 26 feet?
F-15 Eagle
New Member
Woops my mistake LOL
I mean increase it from the current 12 feet to 14 feet.F-15 Eagle
New Member
Lengthening the hull should solve that problem. Which is what the Navy will probably do it make the Flight III Burkes noticeably larger than the current Flight IIA versions.
I thought so, but I couldn't resist.Woops my mistake LOL
That is a fan drawing, nothing more.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
Correct, the design wont be done until 2012.
According to NavyTimes, the Flight III could carry a new set of weapons so I have to also assume more weapons will be added.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
I think the Flight III will retain the 5in gun, and I expect the Flight III version to have at least 32 additional VLS and the AMDR to be installed on a larger hull. How much larger the new DDG-51s will be remains a mystery for now.
Since the Flight III's will have more BMD and AAW warfare capability than the current Flight IIA DDG, I assume thats means more VLS.
Since the Flight III's will have more BMD and AAW warfare capability than the current Flight IIA DDG, I assume thats means more VLS.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
No, right now there has only been Flights I, II and IIA and now Flight III in FY-16.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Is it just me or does the cancellation on the DDX and CGX illustrate the USN's move from a littoral centric mindset to something more balanced? Burkes are excellent blue water platforms after all; perhaps the threat matrix didn’t evolve in the way they envisaged in 1992? Or do you guys think this is all budget related?
Juramentado
New Member
The move to cancel the follow-on CG and DDG programs was mostly budget-driven in conjunction with the move towards more numerous, cheaper assets (i.e., LCS). One of the hot-button changes in strategic planning was Littoral warfare, which played into the LCS program neatly. But as experience now shows, it's hard to plan for 30 years of use, made worse when you realize that the asset you built isn't neccessarily the answer to what you need to do.
Flight III really needs to be better defined. Either it becomes the backbone of AAW and HVA coverage (current territory of Tico) or it becomes the second screen of AAW and Strike warfare, which it is today. Even money says CG(X) is really truly dead and the Burke is now the future cruiser.
Complicating this situation is the NGFS debate. My thinking is that we'll see a better solution for NGFS down the road - either some of the older Burkes get reconfigured with spinoff tech from the Zumwalt or a whole new ship class is built out.