Have you done any dedicated work regarding integration of unmanned systems into the Flight III Burke design?

The only thing we’ve looked at is the feasibility of operating the MQ-8 Fire Scout. There are some modifications that you have to make to the ship to do so, and this is not unique to Flight III. For the DDG 51s in general, there are some modifications you need to make in the hangar, which was built and designed to support MH-60s. In order to adequately service Fire Scout, we’ve been in the process of evaluating what a three-aircraft Fire Scout detachment would require for a whole deployment. For example, there are some things we would want to do in the hangar of the ship, and we’ve started the process of scoping that out. We’re working with NAVAIR, and that’s one of the things that we would do the trades up to one of the things of that investment. We think it’s feasible, but it would take some effort. So, that’s the one unmanned system that we’ve specifically looked at. I’m sure there could be more, but that was the one that we’ve kind of specifically looked at, and said what would it take to kind of fully integrate with the Flight III. And we think we have an idea of what it would take to develop a reasonable way of getting there.

The only thing we’ve looked at is the feasibility of operating the MQ-8 Fire Scout. There are some modifications that you have to make to the ship to do so, and this is not unique to Flight III. For the DDG 51s in general, there are some modifications you need to make in the hangar, which was built and designed to support MH-60s. In order to adequately service Fire Scout, we’ve been in the process of evaluating what a three-aircraft Fire Scout detachment would require for a whole deployment.

 

What is the likelihood that we’ll still be building Burkes in 20 years? How important is this class to the credibility and future of the U.S. Navy and its surface force?

Well, if you look just at the contracts I have right now, I’ve got the current multi-year out through ships that will appropriate in 2017. A ship that appropriates in 2017 probably delivers in 2022, and so 20 years from now, in 2033, the ships that are in this multiyear will be only 9, 10, 11 years old. So, clearly for the next 20 years, the late model DDGs will still be fairly early in their service. I mean, as you get closer to 2033, you’ll start seeing the older ships that will start to retire. But the more recent construction DDG 51s will be very much the mainstay of the surface fleet. Now when you ask me, and I’m going to try to be ecumenical here that the surface fleet is not only DDG 51s, you’re going to see each of the pieces of the surface fleet play their role. So, littoral combat ship (LCS) is obviously important, and their program manager is an old and dear friend of mine, Capt. Tom Anderson. He and I actually served together on Arleigh Burke as division officers. But I’m obviously personally invested in the DDG 51 class. I’m very fortunate to be a program manager who believes in the product that he delivers to the fleet a lot, both because I have a lot of personal experience with it, but also because I believe it to be a good capability for the investment that we’re making.

You know, one of the things I like to say about Flight III, or that I will admit about Flight III, is that it is a compromise position between cost and capability. A lot of people have said, “Hey, we can build a bigger ship, we can build a bigger radar, and wouldn’t that be wonderful? We could get more capability.” That’s great, but people who say that never really say where the money is coming from to do that. What we’re doing with the Flight IIIs is going to be a pretty darn affordable way to field a significant capability. So, again, I go back to Aristotle, and try to be in that midpoint between [the] two extremes [of affordability and capability] . If you see the virtue of that argument, then I think I’ve hit a really good midpoint there. But, of course, people on both ends of that will say, “Hey you’re not at either the extreme of affordability or the extreme of capability.” And, I have to admit that yes, they’re right, and that kind of midpoint is where I like to be. So, I think that midpoint will serve the Navy well both now and in the future. Because frankly, I don’t see in the next 20 years someone parking a big old dump truck full of money in front of the Navy and saying, “Build exactly what you want, make no cost trade-offs. Get the ships exactly in the way you would have them!” If that were the case, we would design different ships. But as long as the question is that you need a ship to do a mission, how can you do that most affordably, I think that the DDG 51 or some derivative of the Burke will look awfully attractive to fill that niche. At least in the near to medium term, though maybe not in the far term.

I don’t see in the next 20 years someone parking a big old dump truck full of money in front of the Navy and saying, “Build exactly what you want, make no cost trade-offs. Get the ships exactly in the way you would have them!” If that were the case, we would design different ships. But as long as the question is that you need a ship to do a mission, how can you do that most affordably, I think that the DDG 51 or some derivative of the Burke will look awfully attractive to fill that niche. At least in the near to medium term, though maybe not in the far term.

This article first appeared in the Defense Fall/Winter 2013-2014 Edition.