The U.S. Navy has formally accepted delivery of the future USS Ted Stevens (DDG-128), a Flight III Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer.
The handover took place on 29 December at Pascagoula, Mississippi, following completion of a series of pier-side and at-sea trials intended to verify the ship’s performance across propulsion, combat systems, communications and navigation. With acceptance complete, DDG-128 will now move into the next phase of activation, including crew training and preparations for commissioning.
USS Ted Stevens was built by HII’s Ingalls Shipbuilding division and is the latest example of the Flight III configuration of the Arleigh Burke class. Flight III destroyers are designed to provide enhanced air and missile defence capability compared with earlier variants, primarily through the integration of the AN/SPY-6(V)1 Air and Missile Defence Radar. The U.S. Navy states that the class also incorporates significant upgrades to electrical power generation and cooling capacity to support the more demanding sensor and combat system suite.
Captain Jay Young, Arleigh Burke-class programme manager within Program Executive Office Ships, said the ship would make a tangible contribution to fleet capability. “The delivery of the future USS Ted Stevens will provide our Fleet with another critical warship with advanced capabilities,” he said. “DDG 128 will further strengthen our at-sea advantage and serve as an enduring reminder of the ship’s namesake and his dedicated service to our Nation.”
The destroyer is named in honour of Ted Stevens, the long-serving former U.S. senator from Alaska, who held office for four decades and was, during his tenure, the longest-serving Republican senator in U.S. history.
According to the U.S. Navy, Flight III destroyers are intended to remain a core element of surface combatant capability for decades, providing ballistic missile defence, air defence, anti-surface and anti-submarine warfare roles within carrier strike groups and independent deployments.
Ingalls Shipbuilding continues to produce additional Flight III destroyers for the Navy, with work underway on future ships including USS Jeremiah Denton (DDG-129), USS George M. Neal (DDG-131), USS Sam Nunn (DDG-133) and USS Thad Cochran (DDG-135). Program Executive Office Ships remains responsible for overseeing the development and procurement of U.S. Navy destroyers alongside a broader portfolio of surface and auxiliary vessels.
What plans do the US Navy have to eventually replace the Arleigh Burke-class? 🤔
They don’t. Burkes forever (or at least till the mid-2050s). DDG(X) has now been replaced by BBG(X).
👍
Leh,
“DDG(X) has now been (temporarily) replaced by BBG(X).” Not certain anyone can accurately forecast the shipbuilding policy of the next administration. Wait, that may not be an optimal plan…😱🙄
It is very much up in the air. If Trump’s so-called Battleship will replace the DDG(X). Personally, I doubt it as the latter would eventually replace today’s Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. Clearly, the former would “never” be produced in the numbers needed. Plus, Trump plans to increase the fleet, not make it smaller!
None for now, Burke’s will be here for many decades.
it’ll have to be better than the zumea effort
Meanwhile in China…
The one warship type the USA can successfully still build.
Imagine if instead of building Type 45, Type 26, and Type 31, we’d stuck to the Type 23… just squeezing more in, stretching it, etc…
The big irony with the ABs is that they were supposed to be the ‘low-end, low-cost’ warships of the USN…
🤦
Happy New Year Slaphead 😁
To be fair the ABs were later than the type 23 and the US build big ships with thick hull plating for the very reason of longevity..we build cramped ships with thin hull platting for the very reason of disposability.
“ To be fair the ABs were later than the type 23”
USS Arleigh Burke – commissioned 1991
HMS Norfolk – commissioned 1990
I like the idea of thick plating and making stuff last. The ABs remind me of the old RN County class which with their 3 funnels and no armour belt seemed very dated at the time. In fact as we know they were extremely fine ( and comfortable) ships built within the 10k ton treaty limits, one of which, HMS Cumberland lasted through to the Mid 1950’s 30 years after her commission. They had mixed reviews in combat although HMS Norfolk scored a decisive hit on the Scharnhorst having tracked the Bismark before and after the Battle of the Denmark Straight . Therefore do I hope our new Destroyers are as large and as fine, even if sadly they dont have 3 funnels.
“The one warship type the USA can successfully still build.”? Seriously? Ford nuclear powered aircraft carriers, LHA/LHD, subs like LA/Seawolf/Virginia and Ohio class conversions? You can make a case for surface fleet boondoggles and lack of ports/MRO facilities, but USA can still build them.
Yeah, the single Ford carrier built has been so successful without any serious issues with its weapons lifts, automation, and the infamous EMALS…
Subs aren’t ships 🤦🏻♂️
Ford has deployed successfully several times now, get over it.
Wow it’s deployed “several times” in the EIGHT AND A-HALF years since it was commissioned 😏
Tell that to Trumpy who wants to ban EMALS 😂
I don’t think you understand carrier deployments? For one no carrier is doing yearly global deployments, just look at our carriers.
And you really think Trump is a source for any credible information?
And you seem to be in denial of the years of issues the Ford had due to the poor introduction of so many new technologies.
Our carriers just had alignment issues with the prop shaft,
No, but Trump is the Commander-in-Chief and so can enforce any daft decision he wants. (cf painting a coastguard cutter grey and calling it a frigate, or reintroducing battleships… 🤦🏻♂️)
I never denied their teething issues, but to continue to criticise them is ridiculous now the first ship had proven itself in combat.
We had the Repulse and Renown class Battlecruisers affectionately called HMS Refit and HMS Repair. I dont suggest USN Ford has achieved that status but she’s on her way.
I’m sorry the T23 is not a multirole anything unlike the Burke, it would’ve been a terrible base design
So you think we shouldn’t be building Type 26s then, building new Type 23s would have done the same job.
Terrific 🤦🏻♂️
No, it wouldn’t, for one the T26 is far larger and is multirole with room for systems like Mk41 and a mission bay.
But you could squeeze that all in just like on the Arleigh-Burke’s – the first ones didn’t even have helicopter hangers!
And the Type 23s are multi-mission too as they’re general-purpose, it’s just that some have towed-arrays giving them a ASW designation.
Calling it general purpose is just that, calling it GP when in reality is has a paltry amount of ASHMs and short range air defence. It is in no way comparable to a Burke
No but the principle is, dunderhead.
Nope, because there is no avenue to make a T23 hull into a destroyer or into say a GP/land attack vessel
Jesus are you pretending to be this retarded?
Please provide any evidence you could say stick a Sampson and the power required on a 23 or even the Slyver VLS required for Aster, get out of here with your fantasy ship.
Maybe our 1960s County Class would have been a better building block than the T42s and we could have fitted them out with a GT drive train.
like the zumwalt? …. not if there one thing that the Americans can’t do, it’s design and build ships smaller than aircraft carrierthey can afford it.
The Zumwalt costs so much because it was a class of 30 reduced to 3
Interesting to see that the USN has not adopted a solid ‘mast’ setup, unlike the UK and some other navies. The ‘solid mast’ may well be aerodynamic (to a certain degree) however, it does create more drag which could/would/does have an impact on ship speed?
I think the USN Sails would Interfere with a Samson set up ?
To be totally honest I have no idea.
🤔👀🤦♂️
Aerodynamic drag isn’t a big factor for ships. At naval speeds, it’s about hydrodynamic drag.
Also, read Halfwit’s reply again 👀😂
Good to see someone’s alert here !!!
Although it doesn’t look like it, the Arleigh Burkes already feature a ‘low signature’ mast, which incorporates angled surfaces. The US Navy developed an enclosed (‘solid’) and lower signature mast some time ago, but it’s only been implemented on the San Antonio class.
BTW… the enclosed mast has been dropped on the newer San Antonio Class ships. So the traditional looking Arleigh Burke style mast must have some advantages. There’s an article at The War Zone entitled ‘San Antonio Class Looks Very Different After Shedding Its Stealthy Masts’.
To be honest I don’t think the U.S. is making an error knocking out Burkes..infact it needs to be building more, it should aim for 4-5 per year and a fleet of a good 100 ABs.. its worth remembering Arleigh Burke is now 34 years old and will be retirement ready.. the other issue is between 1994 and 2004 the US commissioned 41 Burkes.. so unless it builds over 4 Burke replacements a year it’s not even going to keep a steady fleet.. and in 10 years in 2036 there will be 46 Burkes between the ages of 30 and 44 years old….
And I will always use china as the context because china can quite happy knock out a 14,000 ton AAW cruiser, 4-5 AAWs destroyers and 4-5 ASW frigates a year..
Problem is they also need some higher end future destroyers/cruiser but instead are wasting their time on an expensive and hard to build “battleship” plan
They also need a good presence frigate, 6000-7000 tons, Medium range AAW, ASuW and ASW.. and have fucked that up as well.. to be honest they need a mass of credible warships before anything else, because in a maritime conflict it’s the navy with the mass that wins the war.
To me the biggest hole in USN may well be oilers.
Of the current ones 15 out of 19 are 30-40 years old.
Currently, per USNI, the USN is in the middle of a 10 ship contract running from 2023 to 2027. Delivering 2 ABs per year won’t be enough to maintain AB numbers. New frigate construction will further stretch build capacity.
It’ seems inevitable that overall escort numbers will fall, at least for a number of years.
We want Fletchers brought back.
Mr Trump and Mr Hegseth like lots of guns.
I liked the Forrest Sherman’s.