Regarding That Radar Discussion...

The John Young memo includes a Program Decision Memorandum III that directs the Navy with OSD office of Programs, Analysis and Evaluation and AT&L to assess the cost, schedule, and feasibility of outfitting the three FY10 and FY11 DDGs with required power generation and cooling capacity to support backfit of air and missile defense radar (AMDR) enhanced BMD capability. That study must be complete by March 1st, 2009.

Why would he want to know if the AMDR could backfit on the DDG-51 Flight IIIs? Ronald O'Rourke (PDF) has some thoughts.

The improved radar would use active-array radar technology, as opposed to the older passive-array technology used in the SPY-1. The active-array technology would be similar to that used, for example, in the DDG-1000 dual band radar. Multiple industry sources have briefed CRS on their proposals for modifying the DDG-51 design to include an active-array radar with greater capability than the SPY-1.

If the DDG-51 hull is not lengthened, then modifying the DDG-51 design to include an improved radar would require removing the 5-inch gun to make space and weight available for additional equipment needed to support operations with the improved radar. Lengthening the hull might provide enough additional space and weight capacity to permit the 5-inch gun to be retained. Supporting equipment to be installed would include an additional electrical generator and additional cooling equipment. The best location for the generator might be in one of the ship’s two helicopter hangar spots, which would reduce the ship’s helicopter hangar capacity from two helicopters to one.

Due to the higher cost of the improved radar compared with the SPY-1 and the cost for the additional generator and cooling equipment, modifying the DDG-51 design to this configuration would increase the recurring procurement cost of the ship. Information provided to CRS by industry suggests that if the hull is not lengthened, the increase might be in the general range of $100 million, or perhaps or more. If the hull were lengthened, the cost increase would be greater.

A hanger for only one helicopter in the 'evolved' Burke design will be an interesting definition of upgrade. A lot of people believe the 3 DDG-51s for FY10 and FY11 will be evolved designs. Maybe, but it is also possible John Young called for the study of the backfit for AMDR because he suspects the Navy intends to stick with SPY-1 and not evolve towards the AMDR.

Lets face it, when it comes to the issue of surface combatants, the Navy has been saying one thing and doing another for awhile now. I fully expect the Navy to stay with SPY-1 instead of redesigning Flight III for AMDR, no matter what they say or what hoops they have to jump through.

The Navy needs stability in shipbuilding, and by picking more Flight IIA copies with only AEGIS BMD upgrades for SPY-1, the Navy hands over a legitimately mature design with a high degree of confidence in cost. It may not be the most advanced ship or contain the most advanced technology, but Gates has already said 75% solutions are fine, and in reality a Flight III Burke based on the Flight IIA design with AEGIS BMD upgrades and CEC is still better than what the rest of the world is building.