View source for User:Findingmoney100/sandbox/Arleigh Burke-class destroyer (reorganized)

{{DISPLAYTITLE:User:Findingmoney100/sandbox/''Arleigh Burke-''class destroyer (reorganized)}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=August 2021}}
{|{{Infobox ship begin
| infobox caption = 
| display title = none
}}{{Infobox ship image
| Ship image = 130920-N-NX070-025 - USS Arleigh Burke (DDG-51).jpg
| Ship image size = 300px
| Ship caption = {{USS|Arleigh Burke|DDG-51|6}}, the [[lead ship]] of the class, in 2013
}}{{Infobox ship class overview
| Name = ''Arleigh Burke'' class
| Builders = * [[Ingalls Shipbuilding]]
* [[Bath Iron Works]]
| Operators = {{Naval|United States}}
| Class before = * {{sclass|Kidd|destroyer|4}}
* {{sclass|Spruance|destroyer|4}}
| Class after = * {{sclass|Zumwalt|destroyer|4}}
* [[DDG(X)]]
| Subclasses = 
| Cost = US$2.2&nbsp;billion per ship (FY2024)<ref name="cost">{{cite web |last=O'Rourke |first=Ronald |date=2023-12-20 |title=Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress |url=https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RL32109.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231227030311/https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RL32109.pdf |archive-date=2023-12-27 |access-date=2024-01-04 |publisher=[[Congressional Research Service]] |id=RL32109}}</ref>{{Refn|The Navy requests the procurement of two ''Arleigh Burke''-class destroyers in its FY2024 budget proposal. The estimated total procurement cost for these two ships is US$4.4328&nbsp;billion (about US$4.4&nbsp;billion).<ref name="cost" />|group=N}}
| Built range = 1988–present
| In service range = 
| In commission range = 1991–present
| Total ships planned = 92
| Total ships on order = 9
| Total ships building = 10
| Total ships completed = 73
| Total ships canceled = 
| Total ships active = 73
| Total ships laid up = 
| Total ships lost = 
| Total ships retired = 0
| Total ships preserved = 
}}{{Infobox ship characteristics
| Hide header = 
| Header caption = 
| Ship type = [[Guided-missile destroyer]]
| Ship displacement = * Fully loaded:
* Flight I: {{cvt|8300|LT|t|lk=on}}<ref name="fas" />
* Flight II: {{cvt|8400|LT|t}}<ref>{{Cite web |date=March 2003 |title=Transforming the Navy's Surface Combatant Force |url=https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/report_0.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161221210023/http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/report_0.pdf |archive-date=2016-12-21 |access-date=2023-01-26 |publisher=[[Congressional Budget Office]] |page=4}}</ref>
* Flight IIA: {{cvt|9500|LT|t}}<ref>{{cite web |last=O'Rourke |first=Ronald |date=2012-03-02 |title=Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress |id=RL32109 |url=https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA559724.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231228051744/https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA559724.pdf |archive-date=2023-12-28 |access-date=2023-12-28 |publisher=Congressional Research Service |page=2}}</ref>
* Flight III: {{cvt|9700|LT|t}}<ref name="DDG(X)">{{Cite web |last=O'Rourke |first=Ronald |date=2023-12-20 |title=Navy DDG(X) Next-Generation Destroyer Program: Background and Issues for Congress |id=IF11679 |url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11679 |access-date=2023-02-07 |publisher=Congressional Research Service |page=1 |archive-date=17 October 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221017132911/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11679 |url-status=live }}</ref>
| Ship length = * Flights I & II: {{cvt|505|ft}}<ref name="factfile" />
* Flights IIA & III: {{cvt|509.5|ft}}<ref name="factfile" />
| Ship beam = {{cvt|66|ft}}<ref name="fas" />
| Ship height = 
| Ship draft = {{cvt|31|ft}}<ref name="fas" />
| Ship depth = 
| Ship decks = 
| Ship deck clearance = 
| Ship ramps = 
| Ship ice class = 
| Ship power = * Flights I–IIA: 3 × Rolls-Royce AG9140 Generators ({{cvt|3000|kW}} each, 450&nbsp;V)
* Flight III: 3 × Rolls-Royce AG9160 Generators ({{cvt|4000|kW}} each, 4,160&nbsp;V)<ref name="FltIII changes">{{Cite web |date=2016-08-04 |title=ARLEIGH BURKE DESTROYERS: Delaying Procurement of DDG 51 Flight III Ships Would Allow Time to Increase Design Knowledge |url=https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/678891.pdf |access-date=2023-02-28 |publisher=Government Accountability Office |page=26 |archive-date=2 March 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230302033059/https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/678891.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="AG9160">{{Cite web |title=Celebrating 50 years of Delivering Marine Gas Turbine Generators |url=https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/our-stories/discover/2022/celebrating-50-years-of-delivering-marine-gas-turbine-generators.aspx |access-date=2023-02-28 |website=rolls-royce.com |archive-date=20 February 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230220004947/https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/our-stories/discover/2022/celebrating-50-years-of-delivering-marine-gas-turbine-generators.aspx |url-status=live }}</ref>
| Ship propulsion = * 4 × [[General Electric LM2500]] gas turbines each generating {{cvt|26250|bhp|lk=in}};<ref>{{Cite web |title=LM2500 Gas Turbine Engine |url=https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/ship/eng/lm2500.htm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210918222200/https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/ship/eng/lm2500.htm |archive-date=2021-09-18 |access-date=2016-12-07 |website=man.fas.org}}</ref>
* coupled to two shafts, each driving a five-bladed reversible [[Variable-pitch propeller (marine)|controllable-pitch propeller]];
* Total output: {{cvt|105000|bhp}}
| Ship speed = In excess of {{convert|30|kn|lk=in}}<ref name="factfile" />
| Ship range = {{cvt|4400|nmi|lk=in}} at {{convert|20|kn}}<ref name="fas" />
| Ship boats = 2 × [[RHIB|rigid-hull inflatable boats]]<ref>{{Cite web |date=2017-01-29 |title=170128-N-HB733-228 |url=https://www.cusnc.navy.mil/Media/Photos/igphoto/2001691843/ |access-date=2023-01-26 |website=U.S. Naval Forces Central Command |language=en-US |archive-date=27 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230127010417/https://www.cusnc.navy.mil/Media/Photos/igphoto/2001691843/ |url-status=live }}</ref>
| Ship complement = * Flight I: 303 total<ref name="US Navy Ship - Destroyer" />
* Flight IIA: 23 officers, 300 enlisted<ref name="US Navy Ship - Destroyer" />
| Ship crew = 
| Ship time to activate = 
| Ship sensors = {{Arleigh Burke-class destroyer sensors}}
| Ship EW = {{Arleigh Burke-class destroyer EW}}
| Ship armament = * '''Guns:'''
* DDG-51 to 80: 1 × [[5"/54 caliber Mark 45 gun#Variants|{{convert|5|in|adj=on|0}}/54 Mk 45 Mod 1/2 (lightweight gun)]]
* DDG-81 onwards: 1 × 5-inch/62 Mk 45 Mod 4 (lightweight gun)
* DDG-51 to 84: 2 × [[Phalanx CIWS|{{cvt|20|mm|1}} Phalanx CIWS]]
* DDG-85 onwards: 1 × 20 mm Phalanx CIWS
* 2 × [[M242 Bushmaster|{{cvt|25|mm|2}}]] [[Mark 38 25 mm Machine Gun System|Mk 38 machine gun system]]
* 1 × [[Laser_weapon#Dazzler|Optical Dazzling Interdictor, Navy]]{{Refn|{{As of|2023}}, ODIN is deployed on six ships of the class.|group=N}}
* DDG-88: 1 × [[Laser_weapon#Examples|High Energy Laser and Integrated Optical-dazzler with Surveillance]]
* '''Missiles:'''
* Flights I & II only: 2 × Mk 141 [[Harpoon (missile)|Harpoon anti-ship missile]] launcher
* Flights I & II: 1 × 29-cell, 1 × 61-cell (90 total cells) [[Mark 41 Vertical Launching System|Mk 41 vertical launching system]]
* Flights IIA & III: 1 × 32-cell, 1 × 64-cell (96 total cells) Mk 41 vertical launching system:
** [[RIM-66 Standard#SM-2 Medium Range Block III/IIIA/IIIB, RIM-66K/L/M|RIM-66M surface-to-air missile]]
** [[RIM-67 Standard#RIM-67B and RIM-156 SM-2 Extended Range|RIM-156 surface-to-air missile]]
** [[RIM-174 Standard ERAM|RIM-174A standard ERAM]]
** [[RIM-161 Standard Missile 3|RIM-161 anti-ballistic missile]] (BMD-equipped ships)
** [[RIM-162 ESSM]]
** [[Tomahawk (missile)|BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missile]]
** [[RUM-139 VL-ASROC|RUM-139 vertical launch ASROC]]
* 1 × [[SeaRAM]]{{Refn|{{As of|2023}}, SeaRAM is deployed on eight ships of the class.|group=N}}
* '''Torpedoes:'''
* 2 × [[Mark 32 Surface Vessel Torpedo Tubes|Mark 32]] triple [[torpedo tube]]s:
** [[Mark 46 torpedo|Mark 46 lightweight torpedo]]
** [[Mark 50 torpedo|Mark 50 lightweight torpedo]]
** [[Mark 54 Lightweight Torpedo|Mark 54 lightweight torpedo]]
| Ship armor = 130 tons of [[Kevlar]] splinter protection around vital areas<ref name="Polmar p145">Polmar 2013, p. 145</ref>
| Ship aircraft = * Flights I & II: None
* Flights IIA & III: Up to two [[SH-60 Seahawk|MH-60R Seahawk]] [[Light Airborne Multi-Purpose System|LAMPS Mk III]] helicopters
| Ship aircraft facilities = * Flights I & II: Flight deck with LAMPS Mk III electronics
* Flights IIA & III: Flight deck with LAMPS Mk III electronics and two hangars
| Ship notes = 
}}
|}

The '''''Arleigh Burke'' class''' of [[guided-missile destroyer]]s (DDGs) is a [[United States Navy]] [[List of destroyer classes of the United States Navy|class of destroyer]] centered around the [[Aegis Combat System]] and the [[AN/SPY-1|SPY-1D]] multi-function [[passive electronically scanned array]] [[radar]]. The class is named for [[Arleigh Burke|Admiral Arleigh Burke]], an American destroyer officer in [[World War II]] and later [[Chief of Naval Operations]]. With an overall length of {{convert|505|to|509.5|ft|m}}, displacement ranging from 8,300 to 9,700 tons, and weaponry including over 90 missiles, the ''Arleigh Burke''-class destroyers are larger and more heavily armed than many previous classes of [[guided-missile cruiser]]s.

These [[warship]]s are multi-mission Aegis destroyers able to conduct [[anti-aircraft warfare]] with [[surface-to-air missile]]s; tactical land strikes with [[Tomahawk missile]]s; [[anti-submarine warfare]] (ASW) with [[towed array sonar]], [[RUM-139 VL-ASROC|anti-submarine rockets]], and [[Sikorsky SH-60 Seahawk|ASW helicopters]]; and [[anti-surface warfare]] with [[Anti-ship missile|ship-to-ship missiles]] and guns. With upgrades to their AN/SPY-1 radar systems and their associated missile payloads as part of the [[Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System]], as well as the introduction of the [[AN/SPY-6]] radar system, the class has also evolved capability as mobile [[anti-ballistic missile]] and [[Anti-satellite weapon|anti-satellite]] platforms. 

The [[lead ship]] of the class, {{USS|Arleigh Burke}}, was commissioned during Admiral Burke's lifetime on 4 July 1991. With the decommissioning of the last {{sclass|Spruance|destroyer|2}}, {{USS|Cushing|DD-985|6}}, on 21 September 2005, the ''Arleigh Burke''-class ships became the U.S. Navy's only active destroyers until the {{sclass|Zumwalt|destroyer|4}} became active in 2016. The ''Arleigh Burke'' class has the longest production run of any U.S. Navy [[surface combatant]]. As of October 2023, all seventy-three built are active, with nineteen more planned to enter service.

== Background ==
The [[Chief of Naval Operations]] (CNO) from 1970 to 1974, Admiral [[Elmo Zumwalt]], sought to improve the U.S. Navy through modernization at minimal cost. Zumwalt's approach to the fleet was a "high-low mix"—a few high-end, high-cost warships supplemented by numerous low-end, low-cost warships. In the late 1970s, the U.S. Navy initiated work on a new Aegis-equipped class of destroyer, designated "DDGX". It was to be the lower-cost counterpart of the ''Ticonderoga''-class cruiser, as well as replace aging destroyers and cruisers that were expected to decommission in the 1990s. In 1982, the DDGX program was redesignated as the DDG-51 program.<ref name="designing">{{Cite web |last=Stillwell |first=Paul |date=2010-08-01 |title=Designing the Arleigh Burke's Hull |url=https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2010/august/designing-arleigh-burkes-hull |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230126005046/https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2010/august/designing-arleigh-burkes-hull |archive-date=26 January 2023 |access-date=2023-01-25 |publisher=U.S. Naval Institute |language=en}}</ref><ref name="Conways pp550–551">Gardiner and Chumbley 1995, pp. 550–551</ref><ref name="Friedman 82 pp388–389">Friedman 1982, pp. 388–389</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=O'Rourke |first=Ronald |title=Navy DDG-1000 and DDG-51 Destroyer Programs: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress |url=https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20081009_RL32109_d095159665886dd8927f8c540bed2b0ff2bf57eb.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210701072624/https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20081009_RL32109_d095159665886dd8927f8c540bed2b0ff2bf57eb.pdf |archive-date=2021-07-01 |access-date=2023-03-16 |website= |publisher=Congressional Research Service |page=5}}</ref>

In 1980, the U.S. Navy initiated design studies with seven contractors.<ref name="NYTimes1">{{cite news |last=Biddle |first=Wayne |date=28 February 1984 |title=The dust has settled on the Air Force's Great Engine |work=The New York Times}}</ref> With a strict cost environment in mind, the designers ultimately selected a 50-foot shorter hull than the ''Ticonderoga''<nowiki/>'s and a displacement limit of 8,300 tons. To compensate for the limited length, the originally planned 80,000 [[shaft horsepower]] (shp) [[General Electric LM2500|LM2500]] gas turbines were upgraded to 100,000 shp, and a wide flaring bow was incorporated.<ref name="designing" /> The designers did not include a helicopter hangar or a secondary air search radar, which were common on contemporary classes. No main gun was included in the original design, later amended to include an [[OTO Melara 76 mm|OTO Melara 76&nbsp;mm]], before finally selecting the 5-inch/54-caliber Mark 45.<ref name="Polmar p145" /><ref name="Friedman 82 pp388–389" /> The preliminary design's lead ship was estimated at US$1.3&nbsp;billion with subsequent units at $760&nbsp;million.<ref name="development">{{cite web |last=Bowen |first=Alva |last2=O'Rourke |first2=Ronald |date=1985-05-01 |title=DDG-51 and the Future Surface Navy |url=https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1985/may/ddg-51-and-future-surface-navy |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230208125049/https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1985/may/ddg-51-and-future-surface-navy |archive-date=2023-02-08 |access-date=2023-12-27 |publisher=U.S. Naval Institute}}</ref>

However, in February 1983, [[United States Secretary of the Navy|Secretary of the Navy]] [[John Lehman]] imposed a ceiling of $1.1&nbsp;billion for the first of the class, with subsequent ships to cost  an average of $700&nbsp;million. This decision was made to ensure the new class would be affordable enough for procurement in large numbers. These restraints forced further design alterations: the beam was shortened by two feet; some armor protection, a dedicated gun fire-control radar, and a fourth generator were omitted; and the planned AN/SLQ-32(V)3 EW suite was downgraded to AN/SLQ-32(V)2. Despite their constraints, the DDG-51 designers benefitted from insight gained from previous classes, leading to survivability improvements.<ref name="development" />

On 3 April 1985, the Navy awarded [[Bath Iron Works]] a $321.9&nbsp;million contract to build the lead ship of the class, USS ''Arleigh Burke'', the other $778&nbsp;million being for the ship's weapons systems.<ref name="NYTIMES2">{{cite news |date=3 April 1985 |title=Maine shipbuilder gets Navy contract for a new destroyer |work=The New York Times}}</ref> [[Gibbs & Cox]] was awarded the contract to be the lead ship design agent,<ref>{{cite web |date=January 2011 |title=History of Gibbs & Cox |url=http://www.gibbscox.com/historyofgibbscox.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110109012157/http://www.gibbscox.com/historyofgibbscox.htm |archive-date=9 January 2011 |access-date=6 February 2011 |publisher=[[Gibbs & Cox]]}}</ref> and [[Ingalls Shipbuilding]] was contracted to build the second ship.<ref>{{Cite web |title=USS BARRY (DDG 52) |url=https://www.nvr.navy.mil/SHIPDETAILS/SHIPSDETAIL_DDG_52.HTML |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201029205417/https://www.nvr.navy.mil/SHIPDETAILS/SHIPSDETAIL_DDG_52.HTML |archive-date=29 October 2020 |access-date=2023-01-25 |website=[[Naval Vessel Register]]}}</ref> USS ''Arleigh Burke'' was laid down at [[Bath, Maine]], on 6 December 1988, and launched on 16 September 1989 by Mrs. Arleigh Burke. The Admiral himself was present at her commissioning ceremony on 4 July 1991, held on the waterfront in downtown [[Norfolk, Virginia]].<ref name="designing" /> Orders for Flight I ships continued through 1995.

==Characteristics==
===Variants===
The ''Arleigh Burke''-class destroyer has four variants, referred to as "Flights". Newer Flights incorporate technological advancements.<ref name="fas">{{cite web |title=DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class |url=https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/ship/ddg-51.htm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150803164022/http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ddg-51.htm |archive-date=3 August 2015 |access-date=1 August 2015 |website=man.fas.org}}</ref> 
*Flight I: DDGs 51–71
*Flight II: DDGs 72–78
*Flight IIA: DDGs 79–124 and DDG-127
*Flight III: DDGs 125–126 and DDG-128 onwards<ref name="factfile">{{cite web |title=Destroyers (DDG 51) |url=https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Files/Display-FactFiles/Article/2169871/destroyers-ddg-51/ |website=navy.mil |publisher=[[United States Navy]] |access-date=15 April 2022 |archive-date=3 November 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211103221654/https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Files/Display-FactFiles/Article/2169871/destroyers-ddg-51/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

<gallery widths="190" class="center" heights="130">
File:USS Fitzgerald DDG-62.jpg|Flight I ship {{USS|Fitzgerald|DDG-62|6}} with Tactical Towed Array Sonar (TACTAS) in the center of the fantail, Harpoon missile launchers, distinctive stacks, and no helicopter hangars
File:USS Mustin (DDG 89) stbd stern view.jpg|Flight IIA ship {{USS|Mustin|DDG-89|6}} without TACTAS and no Harpoon launchers, but with helicopter hangars and new exhaust stacks design
File:DDG-125 acceptance trials.jpg|Flight III ship {{USS|Jack H. Lucas|DDG-125|6}} showing the larger AN/SPY-6 arrays, stacked rigid-hull inflatable boats, and slight exhaust stack modifications
</gallery>

===Structure===
The ''Arleigh Burke''-class ships are among the largest destroyers built in the United States;<ref name="Photo Release">{{Cite web |date=17 April 2010 |title=Photo Release -- Northrop Grumman-Built William P. Lawrence Christened; Legacy of Former POW Honored |url=https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/photo-release-northrop-grumman-built-william-p-lawrence-christened;-legacy-of-former-pow-honored |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201028202058/https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/photo-release-northrop-grumman-built-william-p-lawrence-christened;-legacy-of-former-pow-honored |archive-date=2020-10-28 |access-date=2022-11-18 |website=Northrop Grumman |language=en}}</ref> only the {{sclass|Spruance|destroyer|5}}, {{sclass|Kidd|destroyer|5}} ({{convert|563|ft|m|disp=or|abbr=on}}), and {{sclass|Zumwalt|destroyer|5}} classes ({{convert|600|ft|m|disp=or|abbr=on}}) are longer. The ''Arleigh Burke'' class was designed with a new large, water-plane area-hull form characterized by a wide flaring bow, which significantly improves [[seakeeping]] ability and permits high speed in high [[sea state]]s.<ref name="fas" /> The class's design incorporates [[Stealth technology|stealth techniques]], such as the angled (rather than traditional vertical) surfaces and the raked tripod mainmast, which make the ship more difficult to detect by radar.<ref name="Conways p592">Gardiner and Chumbley 1995, p. 592</ref><ref name="Combat Fleets 98 p1020">Baker 1998, p. 1020</ref>

Its designers incorporated lessons from the {{sclass|Ticonderoga|cruiser|1}}, which the Navy deemed too expensive to continue building and difficult to upgrade further.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Tomajczyk |first=Stephen |title=Modern U.S. Navy Destroyers |publisher=Zenith Imprint |year=2001 |isbn=9781610607339 |pages=60 |language=en}}</ref> For these destroyers, the U.S. Navy returned to all-steel construction, except the mast made of aluminum.<ref name="Janes 15 p940" /> The ''Ticonderoga''s had combined a steel hull with a superstructure made of lighter aluminum to reduce top weight, but the lighter metal proved vulnerable to cracking. Aluminum is also less fire-resistant than steel;<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/11/us/navy-reverting-to-steel-in-shipbuilding-after-cracks-in-aluminum.html |title=Navy Reverting To Steel in Shipbuilding After Cracks in Aluminum |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |agency=Associated Press |date=11 August 1987 |access-date=5 February 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170526234039/http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/11/us/navy-reverting-to-steel-in-shipbuilding-after-cracks-in-aluminum.html |archive-date=26 May 2017 |url-status=live}}</ref> a 1975 fire aboard {{USS|Belknap|CG-26|6}} gutted her aluminum superstructure.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.hazegray.org/faq/smn6.htm#F7 |title=Section F.7: Aluminum in warship construction |website=hazegray.org |date=30 March 2000 |access-date=21 November 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140408041743/http://www.hazegray.org/faq/smn6.htm#F7 |archive-date=8 April 2014 |url-status=live}}</ref> Battle damage to [[Royal Navy]] ships exacerbated by their aluminum superstructures during the 1982 [[Falklands War]] supported the decision to use steel. Other lessons from the Falklands War led to the Navy's decision to protect the ''Arleigh Burke'' class's vital spaces with double-spaced steel layers, which create a buffer against [[anti-ship missile]]s (AShMs), and [[Kevlar]] [[spall]] liners.<ref name="linchpin">{{cite web |url=https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/ship/docs/ArleighB.htm |title=The Arleigh Burke: Linchpin of the Navy |website=man.fas.org |access-date=27 October 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211027004545/https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/ship/docs/ArleighB.htm |archive-date=27 October 2021 |url-status=live}}</ref>

===Passive defenses===
''Arleigh Burke'' destroyers are equipped with [[AN/SLQ-32 electronic warfare suite|AN/SLQ-32]] [[electronic warfare]] (EW) suites that provide [[Electronic warfare support measures|electronic support]].<ref name="fas" /> Vessels with the SLQ-32(V)3, SLQ-32(V)6, or SLQ-32(V)7 variant can [[Radar jamming and deception|jam]] radars.<ref>{{Cite web |title=AN/SLQ-32 Electronic Warfare (EW) system |url=https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/an-slq-32.htm |access-date=2022-08-30 |website=man.fas.org |archive-date=15 November 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221115175251/https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/an-slq-32.htm |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="SNA2022 SEWIP" /> Under an interim need for improved EW capability before more ships receive SLQ-32(V)7, several ''Arleigh Burke''s of the [[United States Seventh Fleet|U.S. Seventh Fleet]] and [[United States Sixth Fleet|U.S. Sixth Fleet]] also carry AN/SLQ-59 and AN/SLQ-62 transportable EW modules, respectively.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Department of Defense: Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Budget Estimates |url=https://www.dacis.com/budget/budget_pdf/FY19/RDTE/N/0604757N_151.pdf |url-status= |access-date=2023-12-27 |publisher=[[United States Department of Defense|U.S. Department of Defense]] |page=1135}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Rogoway |first=Tyler |date=2019-12-01 |title=Shadowy New Electronic Warfare System Has Been Installed On U.S. Navy 7th Fleet Ships |url=https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29626/shadowy-new-electronic-warfare-system-has-been-installed-on-u-s-navy-7th-fleet-ships |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211114092314/https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29626/shadowy-new-electronic-warfare-system-has-been-installed-on-u-s-navy-7th-fleet-ships |archive-date=2021-11-14 |access-date=2023-12-27 |website=The Drive}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Rogoway |first=Tyler |date=2021-03-06 |title=Spain-Based American Destroyers Are Sporting This Unique Electronic Warfare System |url=https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39332/spain-based-american-destroyers-are-sporting-this-unique-electronic-warfare-system |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210307024347/https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39332/spain-based-american-destroyers-are-sporting-this-unique-electronic-warfare-system |archive-date=2021-03-07 |access-date=2023-12-27 |website=The Drive}}</ref>

[[File:Mark 36 SRBOC on USS Stout.jpg|left|thumb|Mark 36 SRBOC fires a chaff decoy from {{USS|Stout|DDG-55|6}}]]

The destroyers have [[Mark 36 SRBOC|Mark 36]] infrared and [[Chaff (countermeasure)|chaff]] decoy launchers, as well as [[Nulka]] decoy launchers, for spoofing incoming AShMs.<ref>{{Cite web |date=11 July 2000 |title=Defense Acquisitions: Comprehensive Strategy Needed to Improve Ship Cruise Missile Defense |url=https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-00-149.pdf |access-date=2023-01-23 |website= |publisher=Government Accountability Office |archive-date=3 February 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230203222930/https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-00-149.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Combat Fleets 05 p913">Wertheim 2005, p. 913</ref> The [[Naval Decoy IDS300|Mk 59 floating decoy launching system]] is also installed on several vessels.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hart |first=Jackie |date=2013-12-17 |title=Decoy Launch System Installed Aboard USS Ramage |url=http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=78320 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160428122645/http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=78320 |archive-date=2016-04-28 |access-date=2023-01-26 |website=navy.mil}}</ref> For defeating incoming torpedoes, the class has two [[AN/SLQ-25 Nixie]] towed countermeasures.<ref name="Polmar p142">Polmar 2013, p. 142</ref> The ships' [[Prairie-Masker]]s can reduce their radiated noise.<ref name="Combat Fleets 05 p948">Wertheim 2005, p. 948</ref>

A collective protection system makes the ''Arleigh Burke'' class the first U.S. warships designed with an air-filtration system against [[CBRN defense|nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare]] (NBC).<ref name="NYTimes1" /> Other NBC defenses include double air-locked hatches, pressurized compartments, and an external countermeasure washdown system.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.dvidshub.net/image/1024607/countermeasure-washdown-system-test |title=DVIDS – Images – Countermeasure washdown system test |work=DVIDS|access-date=27 October 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151017053143/https://www.dvidshub.net/image/1024607/countermeasure-washdown-system-test |archive-date=17 October 2015 |url-status=live}}</ref> The class's electronics are hardened against [[electromagnetic pulse]]s.<ref name="Tucker p376">{{cite book |last= |first= |url=https://archive.org/details/the-encyclopedia-of-middle-east-wars-the-united-states-in-the-persian-gulf-afgha/ |title=The Encyclopedia of Middle East Wars: The United States in the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq Conflicts |publisher=ABC-CLIO |year=2010 |isbn=9781851099474 |editor-last=Tucker |editor-first=Spencer |location=Santa Barbara, California |page=376}}</ref> Fire suppression equipment includes water sprinklers in the living quarters and [[combat information center]] (CIC).<ref name="linchpin" /> The CIC is below the waterline.<ref name="Janes 15 p940" />

===Weapon systems===
The ''Arleigh Burke'' class are multi-mission ships<ref name="US Navy Ship - Destroyer" /> with numerous combat systems, including anti-aircraft missiles, land attack missiles, ship-to-ship missiles, and an [[anti-submarine warfare]] (ASW) system.<ref name="linchpin" /> Missiles are stored in and fired from [[Mark 41 Vertical Launching System]] (VLS) cells; with 90 cells on Flights I–II and 96 cells starting with Flight IIA,<ref name="Combat Fleets 05 p946" /> the ''Arleigh Burke''s are more heavily armed than many preceding [[guided-missile cruiser]] classes.<ref name="Photo Release" /> The ''Arleigh Burke''-class destroyer is equipped with the [[Aegis Combat System]], which combines information from the ship's sensors to display a coherent image of the environment and guides weapons to targets using advanced tracking and fire control.<ref>{{Cite web |title=AEGIS Weapon System |url=https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Files/Display-FactFiles/Article/2166739/aegis-weapon-system/ |access-date=2023-01-27 |website=navy.mil |language=en-US |archive-date=27 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230127192554/https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Files/Display-FactFiles/Article/2166739/aegis-weapon-system/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

Their main radar differs from traditional mechanically rotating radars. Instead, Aegis uses the [[AN/SPY-1]]D [[passive electronically scanned array]] (or the [[AN/SPY-6]] [[active electronically scanned array]] on Flight III ships), which allows continual tracking of targets simultaneous to area scans. The system's computer control also allows centralization of the previously separate tracking and targeting functions. The system is resistant to [[electronic countermeasure]]s.<ref>{{Cite web |title=AN/SPY-1 Radar |url=https://missilethreat.csis.org/defsys/an-spy-1-radar/ |access-date=2022-08-31 |website=Missile Threat |language=en-US |archive-date=6 August 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220806192727/https://missilethreat.csis.org/defsys/an-spy-1-radar/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Wilkinson Jr. |first=John |year=2001 |title=APL's Contributions to Aegis Programs: An Overview |url=https://www.jhuapl.edu/content/techdigest/pdf/V22-N04/22-04-Wilkinson.pdf |url-status=live |journal=The APL Technical Digest |publisher=Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory |volume=22 |issue=4 |pages=425 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230301193618/https://www.jhuapl.edu/content/techdigest/pdf/V22-N04/22-04-Wilkinson.pdf |archive-date=1 March 2023 |access-date=27 January 2023 }}</ref><ref name="Polmar p127">Polmar 2013, p. 127</ref>

[[File:US Navy 031200-N-0000X-001 The guided missile cruiser USS Vicksburg (CG 69), and the guided missile destroyers USS Roosevelt (DDG 80), USS Carney (DDG 64) and USS The Sullivans (DDG 68) launch a coordinated volley of missiles d.jpg|thumb|{{USS|The Sullivans|DDG-68|6}} (foreground) and other ships conducting a coordinated SM-2MR launch]]

The [[Standard Missile]] [[RIM-66 Standard|SM-2MR]]/[[RIM-67 Standard|ER]] and [[RIM-174 Standard ERAM|SM-6]] provide area air defense, though they may also be used in a secondary anti-ship role.<ref>{{cite web |last=LaGrone |first=Sam |date=7 March 2016 |title=Navy Sinks Former Frigate USS Reuben James in Test of New Supersonic Anti-Surface Missile |url=https://news.usni.org/2016/03/07/navy-sinks-former-frigate-uss-reuben-james-in-test-of-new-supersonic-anti-surface-missile |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170204163049/https://news.usni.org/2016/03/07/navy-sinks-former-frigate-uss-reuben-james-in-test-of-new-supersonic-anti-surface-missile |archive-date=4 February 2017 |access-date=20 November 2016 |website=USNI News}}</ref> The SM-2 uses [[semi-active radar homing]] (SARH); up to three targets may be simultaneously intercepted as the ''Arleigh Burke''s have three [[AN/SPG-62]] fire-control radars for terminal target illumination.<ref name="CNOPR201422">{{cite web |date=October 2000 |title=Fire Controlman, Volume 2–Fire-Control Radar Fundamentals |url=https://maritime.org/doc/pdf/fc2.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141030031942/http://www.maritime.org/doc/pdf/fc2.pdf |archive-date=2014-10-30 |access-date=2023-01-27 |publisher=Naval Education and Training Professional Development Center}}</ref><ref name="US Navy Ship - Destroyer">{{Cite web |title=U.S. Navy Destroyer (Ship Class - DDG) |url=https://www.surfpac.navy.mil/Ships/By-Class/US-Navy-Destroyer-Ship-Class-DDG/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230127192559/https://www.surfpac.navy.mil/Ships/By-Class/US-Navy-Destroyer-Ship-Class-DDG/ |archive-date=2023-01-27 |access-date=2023-01-27 |website=surfpac.navy.mil}}</ref> The SM-6, which provides over-the-horizon defense,<ref name="bd815">{{cite web |url=http://breakingdefense.com/2015/08/sm-6-can-now-kill-both-cruise-and-ballistic-missiles/ |title=SM-6 Can Now Kill Both Cruise and Ballistic Missiles |last=Freedberg Jr. |first=Sydney |website=Breaking Defense |date=4 August 2015 |access-date=20 November 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161109204053/http://breakingdefense.com/2015/08/sm-6-can-now-kill-both-cruise-and-ballistic-missiles/ |archive-date=9 November 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref> and the SM-2 Block IIIC feature a dual-mode seeker with [[active radar homing]] (ARH) capability; they do not have to rely on external illumination, so more targets may be intercepted simultaneously.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) |url=https://missilethreat.csis.org/defsys/sm-6/ |access-date=2022-08-30 |website=Missile Threat |language=en-US |archive-date=30 August 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220830063340/https://missilethreat.csis.org/defsys/sm-6/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Scott |first=Richard |date=2020-11-06 |title=Canada approved for SM-2 Block IIIC missile purchase |url=https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/canada-approved-for-sm-2-block-iiic-missile-purchase |access-date=2023-01-23 |website=Janes |language=en |archive-date=6 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201106182907/https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/canada-approved-for-sm-2-block-iiic-missile-purchase |url-status=live }}</ref>

Flights IIA and III—and modernized Flight I and II ships—can carry [[RIM-162 ESSM|RIM-162 Evolved SeaSparrow Missiles]] (ESSMs),<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hammond |first=Sara |date=2004-04-30 |title=Raytheon Awarded Full Rate Production Contract for Evolved SEASPARROW Missile |url=https://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=10 |access-date=2023-01-26 |website=Raytheon News Release Archive |archive-date=27 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230127050619/https://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=10 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=FY 2016 Annual Report |url=https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2016/other/2016DOTEAnnualReport.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201101182304/https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2016/other/2016DOTEAnnualReport.pdf |archive-date=1 November 2020 |access-date=2023-01-26 |publisher=[[Director, Operational Test and Evaluation]] |page=231}}</ref><ref name="ProgramGuide2017">{{Cite book |url=https://media.defense.gov/2020/May/18/2002302043/-1/-1/1/NPG17.PDF |title=U.S. Navy Program Guide 2017 |publisher=[[United States Department of the Navy|U.S. Department of the Navy]] |year=2017 |isbn=978-1090335104 |pages=36, 50–51 |language=en}}</ref> which provide medium-range air defense and are also capable of targeting other ships. ESSM is small enough to be quad-packed into a single Mk 41 VLS cell. ESSM Block 1 uses SARH, guided similarly to older SM-2s. ESSM Block 2, which achieved [[initial operating capability]] (IOC) in 2021, features a dual-mode seeker with ARH capability.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Evolved Seasparrow Missile Block 1 (ESSM) (RIM 162D) |url=https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Files/Display-FactFiles/Article/2168978/evolved-seasparrow-missile-block-1-essm-rim-162d |access-date=2022-08-30 |website=navy.mil |language=en-US |archive-date=24 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230124034832/http://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Files/Display-FactFiles/Article/2168978/evolved-seasparrow-missile-block-1-essm-rim-162d/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

The [[RIM-161 Standard Missile 3|SM-3]], SM-6, and SM-2ER Block IV provide Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD), the SM-3 being an exoatmospheric interceptor<ref>{{Cite web |title=Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) |url=https://missilethreat.csis.org/defsys/sm-3/ |access-date=2022-08-30 |website=Missile Threat |language=en-US |archive-date=1 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220901040207/https://missilethreat.csis.org/defsys/sm-3/ |url-status=live }}</ref> and the latter two having terminal phase anti-ballistic capability.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Standard Missile-2 Block IV |url=https://missilethreat.csis.org/defsys/standard-missile-2-block-iv/ |access-date=2022-08-31 |website=Missile Threat |language=en-US |archive-date=31 August 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220831094808/https://missilethreat.csis.org/defsys/standard-missile-2-block-iv/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="bd815" /> So vital has the [[Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System|Aegis BMD]] role become that all ''Arleigh Burke''s procured since FY2010 are built with BMD capability,<ref>{{cite web |last=O'Rourke |first=Ronald |date=2023-12-20 |title=Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress |url=https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RL33745.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231228053505/https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RL33745.pdf |archive-date=2023-12-28 |access-date=2023-12-28 |publisher=Congressional Research Service |page=2 |id=RL33745}}</ref> and all previous ships are being updated with BMD capability. By January 2023, there were 51 BMD-capable ''Arleigh Burke''-class destroyers.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Aegis Afloat |url=https://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/defense-systems/aegis-afloat/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231123235823/https://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/defense-systems/aegis-afloat/ |archive-date=2023-11-23 |access-date=2024-01-01 |website=[[Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance]]}}</ref>

Flights I and II carry two stand-alone [[Harpoon (missile)|Harpoon]] anti-ship missile launchers for a total of four or eight Harpoons,<ref name="Combat Fleets 05 p947">Wertheim 2005, p. 947</ref> providing an anti-ship capability with a range in excess of {{convert|65|nmi|lk=in}}.<ref name="fas" />

The class can perform tactical land strikes with VLS-launched [[Tomahawk (missile)|Tomahawks]].<ref name="fas" /> With the development of the Tomahawk Block V, all existing Block IV Tomahawks carried will be converted to the Block V. The Tomahawk Block Va version is called the Maritime Strike version, and it provides anti-ship capability in addition to its land attack role. The Block Vb version features the Joint Multi-Effects Warhead System for hitting a wider variety of land targets.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Grady |first=John |date=2020-01-22 |title=Entire Navy Tomahawk Missile Arsenal Will Upgrade To Block V |url=https://news.usni.org/2020/01/22/entire-navy-tomahawk-missile-arsenal-will-upgrade-to-block-v |access-date=2022-11-18 |website=USNI News |language=en-US |archive-date=23 January 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220123090950/https://news.usni.org/2020/01/22/entire-navy-tomahawk-missile-arsenal-will-upgrade-to-block-v |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Archus |first=Dorian |date=2021-03-26 |title=Raytheon delivers 1st Tomahawk Block V missiles to U.S. Navy |url=https://navalpost.com/raytheon-delivers-first-tomahawk-block-v-missiles-to-u-s-navy/ |access-date=2023-02-14 |website=Naval Post |language=en-US |archive-date=15 February 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230215034821/https://navalpost.com/raytheon-delivers-first-tomahawk-block-v-missiles-to-u-s-navy/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

[[File:USN MK-46 Mod 5 lightweight torpedo (cropped).jpg|thumb|{{USS|Preble|DDG-88|6}} shooting a Mark 46 torpedo]]

''Arleigh Burke''-class ships have the [[AN/SQQ-89]] ASW combat system, which is integrated with Aegis. It encompasses the [[AN/SQS-26#AN/SQS-53|AN/SQS-53C]] bow-mounted sonar and a towed array sonar, though several Flight IIA ships do not have a towed array.<ref name="FY2022_Budget">{{Cite web |title=Department of Defense: Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 Budget Estimates |url=https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/22pres/OPN_BA2_Book.pdf |access-date=2023-02-04 |publisher=U.S. Department of Defense |page=12 |archive-date=5 February 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230205023926/https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/22pres/OPN_BA2_Book.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> The towed array is either the AN/SQR-19 Tactical Towed Array Sonar (TACTAS) or the newer TB-37U Multi-Function Towed Array (MFTA). The ships can carry [[Standoff missile|standoff]] [[RUM-139 VL-ASROC|RUM-139]] vertical launch [[Anti-submarine missile|anti-submarine rockets]]. A [[Mark 32 Surface Vessel Torpedo Tubes|Mark 32]] triple [[torpedo tube]]s mount on each side of the ship can fire [[Mark 46 torpedo|Mark 46]], [[Mark 50 torpedo|Mark 50]], or [[Mark 54 Lightweight Torpedo|Mark 54]] lightweight torpedoes for short-range ASW. Flights I and II have a magazine for nine lightweight torpedoes, increased to forty with Flight IIA.<ref name="torpedoes">{{Cite web |title=Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer (Flight II/IIA/IIA TI) |url=https://amiinter.com/wnpr/pdfami/pdfex/amiproject.php?newcontID=666&countryID=68 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230520132121/https://amiinter.com/wnpr/pdfami/pdfex/amiproject.php?newcontID=666&countryID=68 |archive-date=2023-05-20 |access-date=2023-12-27 |website=Worldwide Naval Projections Report |publisher=AMI International |page=3}}</ref> The class can detect anti-ship [[Naval mine|mines]] at a range of about 1,400 meters.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Selected Acquisition Report (SAR): DDG 51 Arleigh Burke Class Guided Missile Destroyer (DDG 51) |url=https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/FY_2014_SARS/15-F-0540_DDG_51_SAR_Dec_2014.PDF |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211230200909/https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/FY_2014_SARS/15-F-0540_DDG_51_SAR_Dec_2014.PDF |archive-date=2021-12-30 |access-date=2023-02-05 |publisher=[[Washington Headquarters Services]] |page=13}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=AN/SQQ-89(V) Undersea Warfare / Anti-Submarine Warfare Combat System |url=https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Files/Display-FactFiles/Article/2166784/ansqq-89v-undersea-warfare-anti-submarine-warfare-combat-system/ |access-date=2022-08-31 |website=navy.mil |language=en-US |archive-date=11 July 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220711063046/https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Files/Display-FactFiles/Article/2166784/ansqq-89v-undersea-warfare-anti-submarine-warfare-combat-system/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

All ships of the class are fitted with at least one [[Phalanx CIWS|Phalanx close-in weapon system]] (CIWS), which provides [[Point-defence|point defense]] against air and surface threats. Eight ships ([[DDG-51]], [[DDG-64]], [[DDG-71]], [[DDG-75]], [[DDG-78]], [[DDG-80]], [[DDG-84]], [[DDG-117]]) are equipped with one [[SeaRAM CIWS]] for improved self-defense.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2015-09-15 |title=Navy Integrating SeaRAM on Rota-Based DDGs; First Installation Complete In November |url=https://news.usni.org/2015/09/15/navy-integrating-searam-on-rota-based-ddgs-first-installation-complete-in-november |access-date=2022-08-31 |website=USNI News |language=en-US |archive-date=31 August 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220831094804/https://news.usni.org/2015/09/15/navy-integrating-searam-on-rota-based-ddgs-first-installation-complete-in-november |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Arleigh Burke SeaRAM">{{Cite web |date=2021-03-27 |title=USS Arleigh Burke heads for new European homeport with new kit |url=https://defbrief.com/2021/03/27/uss-arleigh-burke-heads-for-new-european-homeport-with-new-kit/ |access-date=2023-02-14 |website=Defense Brief |archive-date=21 February 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230221074945/https://defbrief.com/2021/03/27/uss-arleigh-burke-heads-for-new-european-homeport-with-new-kit/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Roosevelt SeaRAM">{{Cite web |title=USS ROOSEVELT (DDG 80) |url=https://www.surflant.usff.navy.mil/Portals/44/Welcome%20Aboard%20brochure_1.doc |access-date=2022-11-18 |website=surflant.usff.navy.mil |archive-date=18 November 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221118173908/https://www.surflant.usff.navy.mil/Portals/44/Welcome%20Aboard%20brochure_1.doc |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Bulkeley SeaRAM">{{Cite web |title=History |url=https://www.surflant.usff.navy.mil/Organization/Operational-Forces/Destroyers/USS-Bulkeley-DDG-84/About-Us/History/ |access-date=2022-11-18 |website=surflant.usff.navy.mil |archive-date=17 November 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221117185813/https://www.surflant.usff.navy.mil/Organization/Operational-Forces/Destroyers/USS-Bulkeley-DDG-84/About-Us/History/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Paul Ignatius SeaRAM">{{Cite web |title=220927-N-GF955-1004 |url=https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Photo-Gallery/igphoto/2003089913/ |access-date=2022-11-18 |website=navy.mil |language=en-US |archive-date=17 November 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221117185048/https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Photo-Gallery/igphoto/2003089913/ |url-status=live }}</ref> ''Arleigh Burke''s can also carry two 25&nbsp;mm [[Mark 38 25 mm Machine Gun System|Mk 38 machine gun systems]], one on each side of the ship, designed to counter fast surface craft.<ref>{{Cite web |title=MK 38 - 25 mm Machine Gun System |url=https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Files/Display-FactFiles/Article/2167836/mk-38-25-mm-machine-gun-system/ |access-date=2022-08-31 |website=navy.mil |language=en-US |archive-date=15 November 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221115175249/https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Files/Display-FactFiles/Article/2167836/mk-38-25-mm-machine-gun-system/ |url-status=live }}</ref> There are numerous mounts for [[crew-served weapon]]s like the [[M2 Browning]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=180627-N-GR120-0643 |url=https://allhands.navy.mil/Media/Gallery/igphoto/2002377270/ |access-date=2022-08-31 |website=allhands.navy.mil |language=en-US |archive-date=31 August 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220831031522/https://allhands.navy.mil/Media/Gallery/igphoto/2002377270/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

[[File:US Navy 070111-N-4515N-509 Guided missile destroyer USS Forest Sherman (DDG 98) test fires its five-inch gun on the bow of the ship during training.jpg|thumb|{{USS|Forrest Sherman|DDG-98|6}} in 2007, test firing her new 5"/62-caliber [[5"/54 caliber Mark 45 gun|Mark 45]] Mod 4 gun, located forward of her [[Mark 41 Vertical Launching System|32-cell missile]] pack module]]

Located on the forward deck is the [[5"/54 caliber Mark 45 gun|5-inch (127&nbsp;mm) Mark 45 gun]]. Directed by the [[Mark 34 Gun Weapon System]], it can be used in anti-ship, anti-air, and [[naval gunfire support]] (NGFS) roles. It can fire 16–20 rounds per minute and has a range of {{convert|13|nmi|km}}.{{Refn|The 5-inch/62-caliber Mark 45 Mod 4 can fire a munition called the Cargo Round, which gives the Mod 4 a range of over {{convert|20|nmi|km}}.<ref name="NW Mk45Mod4" /><ref>{{Cite web |title=Mk 45 Mod 4 Naval Gun System |url=https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/mk-45-mod-4-naval-gun-system |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230226043627/https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/mk-45-mod-4-naval-gun-system |archive-date=2023-02-26 |access-date=2023-05-24 |website=BAE Systems}}</ref>|group=N}}<ref>{{Cite web |title=MK 45 - 5-inch 54/62 Caliber Guns |url=https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Files/Display-FactFiles/Article/2167864/mk-45-5-inch-5462-caliber-guns/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221210015428/https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Files/Display-FactFiles/Article/2167864/mk-45-5-inch-5462-caliber-guns/ |archive-date=2022-12-10 |access-date=2023-05-24 |website=navy.mil |language=en-US}}</ref> ''Arleigh Burke''s can stow 680 5-inch rounds.<ref>{{Cite web |last=DiGiulian |first=Tony |title=5"/54 (12.7 cm) Mark 45 Mods 0 - 2 |url=http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-54_mk45.php |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230320234140/http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-54_mk45.php |archive-date=2023-03-20 |access-date=2023-05-23 |website=NavWeaps}}</ref><ref name ="NW Mk45Mod4">{{Cite web |last=DiGiulian |first=Tony |title=5"/62 (12.7 cm) Mark 45 Mod 4 |url=http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-62_mk45.php |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230320214143/http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-62_mk45.php |archive-date=2023-03-20 |access-date=2023-05-23 |website=NavWeaps}}</ref>

[[File:USS Kidd (DDG-100) San Diego.jpg|thumb|left|USS ''Kidd'' (DDG-100) near Naval Base San Diego with front ODIN system]]

As of 2023, six destroyers ([[DDG-100]], [[DDG-104]], [[DDG-105]], [[DDG-106]], [[DDG-111]], [[DDG-113]]) are equipped with the [[Optical Dazzling Interdictor, Navy]] (ODIN), a [[Directed-energy weapon|directed energy weapon]] that can target unmanned vehicles.<ref>{{Cite web |last=O'Rourke |first=Brian |date=2022-07-01 |title=Now Arriving: High-Power Laser Competition |url=https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2022/july/now-arriving-high-power-laser-competition |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230813023950/https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2022/july/now-arriving-high-power-laser-competition |archive-date=2023-08-13 |access-date=2023-08-13 |publisher=[[United States Naval Institute|U.S. Naval Institute]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-12-27 |title=USS John Finn (DDG 113) Commemorates Navy Chief Petty Officer, Last Living Medal of Honor Recipient from the Attack on Pearl Harbor |url=https://www.dvidshub.net/image/7573156/uss-john-finn-ddg-113-commemorates-navy-chief-petty-officer-last-living-medal-honor-recipient-attack |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221228071920/https://www.dvidshub.net/image/7573156/uss-john-finn-ddg-113-commemorates-navy-chief-petty-officer-last-living-medal-honor-recipient-attack |archive-date=2022-12-28 |access-date=2023-08-13 |website=DVIDS |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=USS Kidd (DDG 100) |url=https://www.navysite.de/dd/ddg100.htm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231008155000/https://www.navysite.de/dd/ddg100.htm |archive-date=2023-10-08 |access-date=2023-08-13 |website=navysite.de}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=USS Sterett (DDG 104) |url=https://www.navysite.de/dd/ddg104.htm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230923071724/https://www.navysite.de/dd/ddg104.htm |archive-date=2023-09-23 |access-date=2023-12-24 |website=navysite.de}}</ref> [[DDG-88]] is equipped with the higher-power [[High Energy Laser and Integrated Optical-dazzler with Surveillance]] (HELIOS).<ref name="HELIOS" />

===Aircraft===
[[File:160518-N-AO823-027 (27316233692).jpg|left|thumb|MH-60 Seahawk above {{USS|Bulkeley|DDG-84|6}}'s flight deck]]

The class's [[Light Airborne Multi-Purpose System]] (LAMPS) Mk III system improves operations with [[Sikorsky SH-60 Seahawk#MH-60R|MH-60]] helicopters. Combat missions of the MH-60 include monitoring submarines and surface ships, launching torpedoes and missiles against them, and providing fire support with machine guns and [[AGM-114 Hellfire|Hellfire]] missiles. The helicopters also serve in a utility role, able to perform [[vertical replenishment]], [[search and rescue]], [[medical evacuation]], communications relay, and naval gunfire spotting and controlling.<ref>{{cite web |title=SH-60 LAMPS MK III Seahawk |url=https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/ac/sh-60.htm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221208121739/https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/ac/sh-60.htm |archive-date=8 December 2022 |access-date=27 October 2015 |website=man.fas.org}}</ref> Flights IIA and III have two hangars for permanently embarking MH-60 helicopters.<ref name="esd.whs.mil" />

In March 2022, an ''Arleigh Burke'' destroyer was deployed with an [[AAI Aerosonde]] [[unmanned aerial vehicle]] (UAV). The aircraft is under demonstration for Flight I and II ships, which do not have accommodations for permanently storing helicopters. The Aerosonde has a small enough footprint to be stowed on those destroyers. It can perform missions such as [[intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance]] at a much lower cost than manned helicopters.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Eckstein |first=Megan |date=2022-04-06 |title=Textron drone deploys on US Navy destroyer as contractor-operated ISR node |url=https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2022/04/06/textron-drone-deployed-on-navy-destroyer-as-contractor-operated-isr-node/ |access-date= |website=[[Defense News]] |language=en }}</ref>

==Further development==
=== Flight II ===
The Flight II iteration of the class was introduced in FY1992.<ref name="fas" /> The incorporation of the AN/SRS-1A(V) [[Direction finding|Combat Direction Finding]] enhanced detection of signals.<ref>{{Cite web |title=AN/SRS-1A(V) Combat Direction Finding |url=https://irp.fas.org/program/collect/cdf.htm |access-date=2023-01-28 |website=irp.fas.org |archive-date=21 February 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230221021417/https://irp.fas.org/program/collect/cdf.htm |url-status=live }}</ref> The [[TADIXS|TADIX-B]], [[JTIDS]] Command and Control Processor, and [[Link 16]] improved communication with other assets.<ref>{{Cite web |title=COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS, COMPUTERS, AND INTELLIGENCE (C4I) |url=https://man.fas.org/dod-101/navy/docs/vis99/v99-ch3e.html |access-date=2023-01-28 |website=man.fas.org |archive-date=21 February 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230221021419/https://man.fas.org/dod-101/navy/docs/vis99/v99-ch3e.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The SLQ-32 EW suite was upgraded to (V)3, and the [[SPS-67]](V)3 surface search radar was upgraded to (V)5.<ref>{{Cite web |title=AN/SPS-67(V) Radar Set |url=https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Files/Display-FactFiles/Article/2167975/ansps-67v-radar-set/ |access-date=2022-09-01 |website=navy.mil |language=en-US |archive-date=1 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220901023156/https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Files/Display-FactFiles/Article/2167975/ansps-67v-radar-set/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Flight II also gained the capability to launch and control the SM-2ER Block IV.<ref name="esd.whs.mil">{{Cite web |title=DDG 51 Arleigh Burke Class Guided Missile Destroyer (DDG 51) |url=https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/FY_2019_SARS/20-F-0568_DOC_25_DDG_51_SAR_Dec_2019_Full.pdf |access-date=2023-01-27 |publisher=Washington Headquarters Services |page=7 |archive-date=27 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230127192556/https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/FY_2019_SARS/20-F-0568_DOC_25_DDG_51_SAR_Dec_2019_Full.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> An expansion of fuel capacity slightly increased the displacement.<ref name="Janes 15 p940">Saunders 2015, p. 940</ref>

=== Flight IIA ===
[[File:Burke class destroyer profile;wpe47485.png|thumb|Profile of Flight IIA ''Arleigh Burke''-class destroyer]]

The Flight IIA design was first procured in FY1994<ref>{{cite web |last=O'Rourke |first=Ronald |date=26 February 2010 |title=Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress |id=RL32109 |url=https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA516419.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230319170137/https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA516419.pdf |archive-date=19 March 2023 |access-date=19 March 2023 |publisher=Congressional Research Service |page=2}}</ref> under new [[littoral warfare]] requirements.<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://archive.org/details/departmentofdefe03unit/ |title=Department of Defense Appropriations for 1995: Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, Second Session |publisher=[[U.S. Government Publishing Office]] |year=1994 |page=191}}</ref> Among the additions are two hangars and support facilities for ASW helicopters, [[Cooperative Engagement Capability]] (CEC),<ref name="esd.whs.mil" /> the Kingfisher mine detection system, and five blast-resistant [[Bulkhead (partition)|bulkhead]]s.<ref name="Combat Fleets 05 p946">Wertheim 2005, p. 946</ref> To accommodate the hangars, the length was increased to {{convert|509.5|ft|abbr=on}}, and the rear-facing SPY-1D arrays are mounted one deck (eight feet) higher to prevent a blind spot.<ref name="Polmar pp141–142" /> Flight IIA replaced retractable missile loading cranes on the forward and aft VLS with a total of six additional cells, as well as increased the torpedo magazine capacity.<ref name="torpedoes" /> The propellers are of a different design to reduce [[cavitation]].<ref name="Combat Fleets 05 p945">Wertheim 2005, p. 945</ref> New [[fiber optics]] improved [[Bandwidth (computing)|bandwidth]] and helped reduce weight gain.<ref name="Janes 15 p942">Saunders 2015, p. 942</ref> Systems removed from Flight IIA include the Harpoon missile launchers{{Refn|According to Polmar, the Harpoon launchers were removed to save weight.<ref name="Polmar p142" /> According to Wertheim, the Harpoon launchers were removed to save costs.<ref name="Combat Fleets 05 p946" />|group=N}} and, starting with {{USS|McCampbell|DDG-85}}, the forward Phalanx CIWS.<ref name="Ewing" /> Flight IIA ships were initially built without the AN/SQR-19 TACTAS,<ref name="FY2022_Budget" /> though later units were subsequently installed with TACTAS.<ref name="Polmar pp141–142">Polmar 2013, pp. 141–142</ref>

Starting with {{USS|Winston S. Churchill|DDG-81}}, the longer 5-inch/62-caliber (127&nbsp;mm) Mark 45 Mod 4 gun was installed.<ref name="Combat Fleets 05 p946" /> Later Flight IIA ships starting with {{USS|Mason|DDG-87|}} use the BridgeMaster E as their navigation radar instead of the AN/SPS-73(V)12.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Northrop Grumman to Supply Radars for New U.S. Navy Destroyers |url=https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grumman-to-supply-radars-for-new-u-s-navy-destroyers |access-date=2022-09-04 |website=Northrop Grumman Newsroom |language=en |archive-date=4 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220904065110/https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grumman-to-supply-radars-for-new-u-s-navy-destroyers |url-status=live }}</ref> Subsequent Flight IIA ships employ additional signature-reduction measures: the hangars of [[DDG-86]] onwards are made of [[composite material]]s, and the exhaust funnels of DDG-89 onwards are shrouded by the superstructure.<ref name="Combat Fleets 05 p946" /> The use of the improved SPY-1D(V) radar, starting with {{USS|Pinckney|DDG-91|}}, enhances the ships' ability to filter out [[Clutter (radar)|clutter]] and resist electronic attack.<ref>{{Cite book |title=Vision, Presence, Power: A Program Guide to the U.S. Navy |publisher=U.S. Department of the Navy |year=2004 |edition=2004 |pages=86 |language=en}}</ref>

[[File:USS Momsen (DDG 92) stbd bow view.jpg|thumb|{{USS|Momsen|DDG-92|6}}, 2006, with torpedo tubes mounted on aft missile deck rather than earlier amidships mounting, superstructure changes to accommodate an AN/WLD-1 holding bay, and lacking CIWS]]

Several Flight IIA ships were constructed without any Phalanx CIWS because of the planned Evolved SeaSparrow Missile; the Navy had initially decided that ESSM made Phalanx redundant.<ref name="Combat Fleets 05 p946" /> However, the Navy later changed its mind and decided to retrofit all IIA ships to carry at least one Phalanx CIWS by 2013.<ref name="Ewing">{{harvnb|Ewing|2008}}</ref>

DDGs 91–96 (USS ''Pinckney'', {{USS|Momsen|DDG-92|6}}, {{USS|Chung-Hoon|DDG-93|6}}, {{USS|Nitze|DDG-94|6}}, {{USS|James E. Williams|DDG-95|6}}, and {{USS|Bainbridge|DDG-96|6}}) were built with superstructure differences to accommodate the [[AN/WLD-1 Remote Minehunting System]] (RMS).<ref>{{Cite web |date= |title=Department of the Navy: Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 Budget Estimates |url=https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/11pres/RDTEN_BA4_Book.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230127192559/https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/11pres/RDTEN_BA4_Book.pdf |archive-date=27 January 2023 |access-date=2023-01-27 |publisher=U.S. Department of the Navy |page=198}}</ref> However, only ''Pinckney'', ''Momsen'', and ''Bainbridge'' were installed with the system before the RMS program was canceled.<ref name="Polmar p142" />

===Modernization===
Efforts to modernize the ''Arleigh Burke'' class began amid [[United States battleship retirement debate|congressional concerns]] over the retirement of the {{sclass|Iowa|battleship}}. In 1996, the Navy began a program to field the [[Extended Range Guided Munition]] (ERGM) for the DDG-51 class.<ref>{{Cite web |date=5 May 2006 |title=National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 |url=https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRPT-109hrpt452/pdf/CRPT-109hrpt452.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220717174728/https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRPT-109hrpt452/pdf/CRPT-109hrpt452.pdf |archive-date=2022-07-17 |access-date=2022-11-18 |website= |publisher=U.S. Government Publishing Office |pages=193–194 |publication-place=Washington, D.C.}}</ref> The ERGM was to extend the class's 5-inch Mark 45 gun range to {{convert|63|nmi|km}}. It necessitated a modification of the gun; the 62-caliber Mark 45 Mod 4 was created and installed on DDG-81 and onwards in anticipation of the ERGM.<ref>{{cite web |title=MK 45 5-inch / 54-caliber (lightweight) gun; MK 45-5-inch / 62-caliber (MOD 4 ERGM) gun |url=https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-45.htm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211015223039/https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-45.htm |archive-date=15 October 2021 |access-date=20 November 2016 |website=man.fas.org}}</ref><ref name="Combat Fleets 05 p946" /> However, the ERGM was canceled in 2008.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Torres |first=Rene |title=Raising the Iowa: Reactivating the Iowa Class Battleships to Fill the Current Naval Surface Fire Support Vacancy |url=https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA600139.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211121032931/https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA600139.pdf |archive-date=2021-11-21 |access-date=2023-01-21 |publisher=[[Marine Corps Combat Development Command]] |page=9}}</ref>

The current DDG-51 modernization program is designed to provide mid-life upgrades to ensure the destroyers remain effective with service lives of at least 35 years.<ref name="SeaPower2019 p20" /> Modernization of existing ships provides commonality with in-production ships. The program's goals are reduced manning, increased mission effectiveness, and reduced total cost.<ref name="US Navy Ship - Destroyer" /> Mid-life modernization of Flight I and II ships is done in two phases: the first phase updates the hull, mechanical, and electrical (HM&E) systems, while the second phase focuses on Aegis Combat System upgrades and introduces an [[Open Architecture Computing Environment]] (OACE).<ref name="ProgramGuide2017" /> By 2017, modernization technologies were introduced to production ships, and the Navy started modernization of Flight IIA ships through a single process combining both phases of upgrading.<ref name="SeaPower2019 p20">{{Cite book |title=Seapower 2019 Almanac |publisher=[[Navy League of the United States]] |year=2019 |location=Arlington, VA |page=20}}</ref> The capabilities of modernized destroyers include CEC, Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD),{{Refn|Integrated Air and Missile Defense refers to the ability to simultaneously perform anti-air warfare and ballistic missile defense.|group=N}} ESSM support, improved electronic support with Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) Block 2, improved data processing with [[Boeing]]'s Gigabit [[Ethernet]] Data Multiplex System,<ref>{{cite web |date=24 October 2011 |title=Boeing Deploys Gigabit Ethernet Data Multiplex System on USS Spruance |url=http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1983 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111225130359/http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1983 |archive-date=25 December 2011 |access-date=27 December 2011 |publisher=[[Boeing]]}}</ref> and improvements to littoral warfare.<ref name="CNOPR20142">{{cite web |date=4 November 2014 |title=CNO's Position Report: 2014 |url=http://www.navy.mil/cno/docs/141104_PositionReport.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150122182937/http://www.navy.mil/cno/docs/141104_PositionReport.pdf |archive-date=22 January 2015 |access-date=2014-11-26 |publisher=US Navy}}</ref><ref name="ProgramGuide2017" />

[[File:Lt. Yuma Kuwata monitors surface contacts aboard USS John S. McCain (DDG 56) during Malabar 2020. (50570331182).jpg|thumb|[[Combat information center]] aboard {{USS|John S. McCain|DDG-56|6}}]]

In July 2010, [[BAE Systems]] announced it had been awarded a contract to modernize 11 ships.<ref>{{cite web |title=BAE to Modernize Up to 11 Norfolk-based Destroyers |url=http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/BAE-to-Modernize-Up-to-11-Norfolk-based-Destroyers-06498/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100807230224/http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/BAE-to-Modernize-Up-to-11-Norfolk-based-Destroyers-06498/ |archive-date=7 August 2010 |access-date=3 August 2010 |website=Defense Industry Daily}}</ref> In May 2014, USNI News reported that 21 of the 28 Flight I and II ''Arleigh Burke''-class destroyers would not receive the full mid-life upgrade that included electronics and Aegis Baseline 9 software for IAMD and SM-6 compatibility;<ref>{{cite web |last=O'Rourke |first=Ronald |date=2019-12-17 |title=Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress |url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL33745/203 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230705014908/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL33745/203 |archive-date=2023-07-05 |access-date=2023-12-31 |publisher=Congressional Research Service |page=3 |id=RL33745}}</ref> instead, they would retain the basic BMD 3.6.1 software in a $170&nbsp;million upgrade concentrating on HM&E systems, and on some ships, their anti-submarine suite.<ref name="USNI20140527">{{cite news |last=LaGrone |first=Sam |date=27 May 2014 |title=Navy Quietly Downscales Destroyer Upgrades |website=USNI News |publisher=U.S. Naval Institute |url=http://news.usni.org/2014/05/27/navy-quietly-downscales-destroyer-upgrades |url-status=live |access-date=20 November 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170618072015/https://news.usni.org/2014/05/27/navy-quietly-downscales-destroyer-upgrades |archive-date=18 June 2017}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=LaGrone |first=Sam |date=2014-06-03 |title=Navy Altered Destroyer Upgrades Due to Budget Pressure, Demand for Ships |url=https://news.usni.org/2014/06/03/navy-altered-destroyer-upgrade-plan-due-budget-pressure-demand-ships |access-date=2022-11-18 |website=USNI News |language=en-US |archive-date=18 November 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221118173911/https://news.usni.org/2014/06/03/navy-altered-destroyer-upgrade-plan-due-budget-pressure-demand-ships |url-status=live }}</ref> Seven Flight I ships—DDGs 51–53, 57, 61, 65, 69—received the full $270&nbsp;million Baseline 9 upgrade.<ref name="USNI20140527" /> Deputy of surface warfare Dave McFarland said that this change was due to the budget cuts in the [[Budget Control Act of 2011]].<ref>{{cite news |last1=LaGrone |first1=Sam |date=3 June 2014 |title=Navy Altered Destroyer Upgrades Due to Budget Pressure, Demand for Ships |website=USNI News |publisher=U.S. Naval Institute |url=http://news.usni.org/2014/06/03/navy-altered-destroyer-upgrade-plan-due-budget-pressure-demand-ships |url-status=live |access-date=3 June 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140607010401/http://news.usni.org/2014/06/03/navy-altered-destroyer-upgrade-plan-due-budget-pressure-demand-ships |archive-date=7 June 2014}}</ref>

In 2016, the Navy announced it would begin outfitting 34 Flight IIA ''Arleigh Burke''s with a hybrid-electric drive (HED) to lower fuel costs. The four LM2500 gas turbines of the class are most efficient at high speeds; an electric motor was to be attached to the main reduction gear to turn the drive shaft and propel the ship at speeds under {{convert|13|kn|km/h}}, such as during BMD or maritime security operations. Use of the HED for half the time could extend time on station by 2.5 days before refueling.<ref>{{cite web |last=LaGrone |first=Sam |date=23 September 2015 |title=Navy Set to Install Hybrid Electric Drives in Destroyer Fleet Staring [sic] Next Year |url=http://news.usni.org/2015/09/23/navy-set-to-install-hybrid-electric-drives-in-destroyer-fleet-staring-next-year |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160905110200/https://news.usni.org/2015/09/23/navy-set-to-install-hybrid-electric-drives-in-destroyer-fleet-staring-next-year |archive-date=5 September 2016 |access-date=20 November 2016 |website=USNI News |publisher=U.S. Naval Institute}}</ref> In March 2018, the Navy announced the HED would be installed on {{USS|Truxtun|DDG-103}} to test the technology, but upgrades of further destroyers would be halted due to changed budget priorities.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Larter |first=David |date=2018-03-08 |title=US Navy canceling program to turn gas-guzzling destroyers into hybrids |url=https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/03/08/the-us-navy-is-cancelling-a-program-to-turn-gas-guzzling-destroyers-into-hybrids/ |access-date=2022-11-18 |website=Defense News |language=en |archive-date=9 March 2018 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20180309220341/https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/03/08/the-us-navy-is-cancelling-a-program-to-turn-gas-guzzling-destroyers-into-hybrids/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

[[File:ArleighBurkeClassShips.jpg|thumb|right|{{USS|Cole|DDG-67|6}} (left) and two other ''Arleigh Burke''-class destroyers docked at [[Naval Station Norfolk]] in July 2009]]

Also in 2016, four destroyers of the [[U.S. 6th Fleet]] based in [[Naval Station Rota, Spain]] (USS ''Carney'', USS ''Ross'', USS ''Donald Cook'', and USS ''Porter'') received self-protection upgrades, replacing one of their two Phalanx CIWS with a SeaRAM CIWS, which combines the Phalanx sensor dome with an 11-cell [[RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile|RIM-116]] launcher. This was the first time the system was paired with an Aegis ship.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.usni.org/2015/09/15/navy-integrating-searam-on-rota-based-ddgs-first-installation-complete-in-November |title=Navy Integrating SeaRAM on Rota-Based DDGs; First Installation Complete in November |last=Eckstein |first=Megan |website=USNI News |publisher=U.S. Naval Institute |date=15 September 2015 |access-date=20 November 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161008160945/https://news.usni.org/2015/09/15/navy-integrating-searam-on-rota-based-ddgs-first-installation-complete-in-November |archive-date=8 October 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref> Another four ships (USS ''Arleigh Burke'', USS ''Roosevelt'', USS ''Bulkeley'', and USS ''Paul Ignatius'') have since been forward-deployed to Rota and also received a SeaRAM.<ref name="Arleigh Burke SeaRAM" /><ref name="Roosevelt SeaRAM" /><ref name="Bulkeley SeaRAM" /><ref name="Paul Ignatius SeaRAM" />

In February 2018, Lockheed Martin received a contract to deliver its [[High Energy Laser and Integrated Optical-dazzler with Surveillance]] (HELIOS) system for installation onto an ''Arleigh Burke'' destroyer. HELIOS is a "60+&nbsp;kW"-class laser, scalable to 120&nbsp;kW, that can "dazzle" or destroy small boats and UAVs up to {{cvt|5|mi|order=flip}} away.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Katz |first=Justin |date=2022-08-18 |title=Lockheed delivers high-energy laser four years in the making to US Navy |url=https://breakingdefense.sites.breakingmedia.com/2022/08/lockheed-delivers-high-energy-laser-four-years-in-the-making-to-us-navy/ |access-date= |website=Breaking Defense |language=en-US |archive-date=25 March 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230325022018/https://breakingdefense.com/2022/08/lockheed-delivers-high-energy-laser-four-years-in-the-making-to-us-navy/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Meredith |first=Roaten |date=19 October 2022 |title=Navy Destroyer Adds HELIOS Laser to Arsenal |url=https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2022/10/19/navy-destroyer-adds-helios-laser-to-arsenal |access-date= |website=nationaldefensemagazine.org |language=en |archive-date=23 October 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221023200306/https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2022/10/19/navy-destroyer-adds-helios-laser-to-arsenal |url-status=live }}</ref> It would be the first laser weapon put on a warship.<ref>[https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/03/03/navy-buys-ship-lasers-dazzle-drone-swarms-take-out-small-boats.html Navy Buys Lasers to 'Dazzle' Drones, Take Out Small Boats] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180305064319/https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/03/03/navy-buys-ship-lasers-dazzle-drone-swarms-take-out-small-boats.html |date=5 March 2018}}. ''Military.com''. 3 March 2018</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Freedberg Jr. |first=Sydney |date=2018-03-01 |title=First Combat Laser For Navy Warship: Lockheed HELIOS |url=https://breakingdefense.sites.breakingmedia.com/2018/03/first-combat-laser-for-navy-warship-lockheed-helios/ |access-date=2022-11-18 |website=Breaking Defense |language=en-US |archive-date=25 March 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230325022030/https://breakingdefense.com/2018/03/first-combat-laser-for-navy-warship-lockheed-helios/ |url-status=live }}</ref> In November 2019, {{USS|Dewey|DDG-105}} had the [[Optical Dazzling Interdictor, Navy]] (ODIN) system installed. ODIN differs from the [[Laser Weapon System|XN-1 LaWS]] previously mounted on {{USS|Ponce|LPD-15|6}} in that ODIN functions as a dazzler, which blinds or destroys optical sensors on drones rather than shooting down the aircraft.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Seck |first=Hope |date=2020-02-21 |title=The Navy Has Installed the First Drone-Stopping Laser on a Destroyer |url=https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/02/21/navy-has-installed-first-drone-stopping-laser-destroyer.html |access-date=2022-11-18 |website=Military.com |language=en |archive-date=19 October 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211019154419/https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/02/21/navy-has-installed-first-drone-stopping-laser-destroyer.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Szondy |first=David |date=2020-02-22 |title=US Navy deploys first anti-drone laser dazzler weapon |url=https://newatlas.com/military/us-navy-laser-dazzzler-weapon-drone/ |access-date= |website=New Atlas |language=en-US |archive-date=23 February 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200223202226/https://newatlas.com/military/us-navy-laser-dazzzler-weapon-drone/ |url-status=live }}</ref> HELIOS was delivered to the Navy in August 2022 and installed on {{USS|Preble|DDG-88}}. ''Preble'' was expected to begin at-sea testing of the HELIOS in FY2023.<ref name="HELIOS">{{Cite web |last=Trevithick |first=Joseph |date=2022-08-23 |title=Here's Our First Look At A HELIOS Laser-Armed Navy Destroyer |url=https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/heres-our-first-look-at-a-helios-laser-armed-navy-destroyer |access-date=2022-08-30 |website=The Drive |language=en |archive-date=30 August 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220830063338/https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/heres-our-first-look-at-a-helios-laser-armed-navy-destroyer |url-status=live }}</ref>

Also by 2018, all ''Arleigh Burke''-class ships homeported in the Western Pacific were scheduled to have upgraded ASW systems, including the TB-37U MFTA replacing the AN/SQR-19 TACTAS.<ref>{{cite web |last=Keller |first=John |title=Lockheed Martin to build anti-submarine warfare (ASW) towed-array sonar systems for surface warships |url=http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2017/06/towed-array-sonar-surface-warships-anti-submarine-warfare-asw.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171201182913/http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2017/06/towed-array-sonar-surface-warships-anti-submarine-warfare-asw.html |archive-date=1 December 2017 |access-date=19 February 2018 |website=militaryaerospace.com|date=6 June 2017 }}</ref><ref name="Greenert20130918">{{cite web |last=Greenert |first=Jonathan |author-link=Jonathan Greenert |date=18 September 2013 |title=Statement Before The House Armed Services Committee On Planning For Sequestration In FY 2014 And Perspectives Of The Military Services On The Strategic Choices And Management Review |url=http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS00/20130918/101291/HHRG-113-AS00-Wstate-GreenertUSNJ-20130918.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130923100518/http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS00/20130918/101291/HHRG-113-AS00-Wstate-GreenertUSNJ-20130918.pdf |archive-date=23 September 2013 |access-date=21 September 2013 |publisher=US House of Representatives}}</ref>

In FY2019, the Navy started a program to procure the Mod 4 variant of the Mark 38 machine gun system<ref>{{Cite web |title=Department of Defense: Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 Budget Estimates |url=https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/21pres/PANMC_BOOK.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221114034054/https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/21pres/PANMC_BOOK.pdf |archive-date=2022-11-14 |access-date=2022-12-10 |website= |publisher=U.S. Department of Defense |page=136}}</ref> to address "unmanned aerial systems (UAS) and high speed maneuverable [[unmanned surface vehicle]] (USV) threats."<ref name="Mk38Mod4">{{Cite web |title=Department of Defense: Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 Budget Estimates |url=https://www.stratvocate.com/files/2021/RDTEN_BA4_Book-p1235/RDTEN_BA4_Book.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221210061231/https://www.stratvocate.com/files/2021/RDTEN_BA4_Book-p1235/RDTEN_BA4_Book.html |archive-date=2022-12-10 |access-date=2022-12-10 |website= |publisher=U.S. Department of Defense |page=1147}}</ref> Mod 4 will incorporate the 30&nbsp;mm [[Mk44 Bushmaster II]] instead of the 25&nbsp;mm [[M242 Bushmaster]] of previous variants.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ong |first=Peter |date=21 April 2022 |title=USGC's Polar Security Cutters to Receive Mark 38 Mod 4 Guns |url=https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/04/usgcs-cutters-to-receive-30mm-mark-44/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220522130754/https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/04/usgcs-cutters-to-receive-30mm-mark-44/ |archive-date=2022-05-22 |access-date=2022-12-10 |website=Naval News |language=en-US}}</ref> The Mk 38 Mod 4 is planned to be fielded on Flight IIA and III ''Arleigh Burke''-class destroyers.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Department of Defense: Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 Budget Estimates |url=https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/23pres/WPN_Book.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230131030042/https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/23pres/WPN_Book.pdf |archive-date=2023-01-31 |access-date=2023-01-30 |website= |publisher=U.S. Department of Defense |page=465}}</ref>

In October 2020, [[United States National Security Advisor|National Security Advisor]] [[Robert C. O'Brien]] said that all three Flights of the ''Arleigh Burke''-class destroyer would field the [[Common-Hypersonic Glide Body]] (C-HGB) missile developed under the [[Conventional Prompt Strike]] program. However, the C-HGB is expected to be around {{cvt|3|ft|abbr=on}} wide, making it too large to fit in Mk 41 VLS tubes or on deck launchers. Installing them on ''Arleigh Burke'' destroyers would require removing some Mk 41 cells to accommodate the larger weapon, an expensive and time-consuming process.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Larter |first=David |date=2020-10-21 |title=All US Navy destroyers will get hypersonic missiles, says Trump's national security adviser |url=https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/10/21/all-us-navy-destroyers-will-get-hypersonic-missiles-trumps-national-security-advisor-says/ |access-date= |website=Defense News |language=en |archive-date=23 October 2020 |archive-url=https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20201023151632/https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/10/21/all%2Dus%2Dnavy%2Ddestroyers%2Dwill%2Dget%2Dhypersonic%2Dmissiles%2Dtrumps%2Dnational%2Dsecurity%2Dadvisor%2Dsays/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last1=LaGrone |first1=Sam |last2=Shelbourne |first2=Mallory |date=2020-10-22 |title=Path to Install Hypersonic Weapons on Arleigh Burke Destroyers Unclear |url=https://news.usni.org/2020/10/22/path-to-install-hypersonic-weapons-on-arleigh-burke-destroyers-unclear |access-date= |website=USNI News |language=en-US |archive-date=27 October 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201027020553/https://news.usni.org/2020/10/22/path-to-install-hypersonic-weapons-on-arleigh-burke-destroyers-unclear |url-status=live }}</ref> There is criticism of this idea: the oldest Flight I ships would need a service life extension to justify refit costs that would only prolong their service lives a short time when they are already more expensive to operate, and the newest Flight III ships that are optimized for BMD would be given a new, complex mission requiring a major refit shortly after introduction.<ref>{{Cite web |last=McLeary |first=Paul |date=2020-10-22 |title=Signaling China, White House Floats Putting Hypersonic Missiles On Destroyers |url=https://breakingdefense.sites.breakingmedia.com/2020/10/signaling-china-white-house-floats-putting-hypersonic-missiles-on-destroyers/ |access-date= |website=Breaking Defense |language=en-US |archive-date=25 March 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230325022018/https://breakingdefense.com/2020/10/signaling-china-white-house-floats-putting-hypersonic-missiles-on-destroyers/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

About 20 Flight IIA destroyers will undergo further modernization under the DDG MOD 2.0 program.<ref>{{cite web |last=LaGrone |first=Sam |date=2023-01-31 |title=Navy Destroyer Modernization Program Could Cost $17B, Take Up to 2 Years Per Hull |url=https://news.usni.org/2023/01/31/navy-destroyer-modernization-program-could-cost-17b-take-up-to-2-years-per-hull |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230201015225/https://news.usni.org/2023/01/31/navy-destroyer-modernization-program-could-cost-17b-take-up-to-2-years-per-hull |archive-date=2023-02-01 |access-date=2023-11-12 |website=USNI News}}</ref> DDG MOD 2.0 will backfit SPY-6(V)4 and Aegis Baseline 10 to provide similar capabilities to Flight III ships,{{Refn|The AN/SPY-6 is a scalable system made up of radar module assemblies (RMAs), self-contained 2'x2'x2' radar boxes. Different numbers of RMAs can be combined to create different-sized variants of the SPY-6.<ref>{{Cite web |title=U.S. Navy's SPY-6 Family of Radars |url=https://www.raytheonmissilesanddefense.com/what-we-do/missile-defense/sensors/spy6-radars |access-date=2023-02-15 |website=Raytheon Missiles & Defense |archive-date=8 February 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230208190407/https://www.raytheonmissilesanddefense.com/what-we-do/missile-defense/sensors/spy6-radars |url-status=live }}</ref> Due to the smaller superstructure of Flight IIA ships compared to Flight III ships, the radar implementation will be scaled down from the Flight III's version (24-RMA SPY-6(V)4 vs. 37-RMA SPY-6(V)1).<ref name="SPY-6(V)4" />|group=N}} as well as upgrade cooling systems to support the new radar. DDG MOD 2.0 will also deliver the AN/SLQ-32(V)7 EW suite, which adds the SEWIP Block 3 electronic attack subsystem.<ref name="SNA2022 SEWIP">{{Cite web |date=13 January 2022 |title=SEWIP / AN/SLQ-32(V) Electronic Warfare System Overview & Program Status |url=https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/Exhibits/SNA2022/SNA2022-CAPTJasonHall-SEWIP.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221121224805/https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/Exhibits/SNA2022/SNA2022-CAPTJasonHall-SEWIP.pdf |archive-date=21 November 2022 |access-date=2022-11-30 |publisher=Program Executive Office Integrated Warfare Systems}}</ref><ref name="DDGMOD">{{Cite web |last=Hutchison |first=Todd |date=2023-09-07 |title=Guided Missile Destroyer: (DDG MOD) 2.0 |url=https://shipbuildersusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/DIST-A_3_INDP_DDG-MOD-2.0-V5.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231108132808/https://shipbuildersusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/DIST-A_3_INDP_DDG-MOD-2.0-V5.pdf |archive-date=2023-11-08 |access-date=2023-11-10 |publisher=Naval Sea Systems Command}}</ref> In May 2021, the Navy approved a "Smart Start Plan" for four ships—DDGs 91, 93, 95, 97—to make a gradual transition to DDG MOD 2.0. These ships will undergo a DDG MOD 1.5 phase that provides the SLQ-32(V)7; in 2023, DDG-91 became the first destroyer to receive SLQ-32(V)7.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Trevithick |first=Joseph |date=2023-09-22 |title=Navy Destroyer Looks Significantly Different After Major Upgrade |url=https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/navy-destroyer-looks-significantly-different-after-major-upgrade |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231001084733/https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/navy-destroyer-looks-significantly-different-after-major-upgrade |archive-date=2023-10-01 |access-date=2023-11-10 |website=The Drive}}</ref> They will then receive the SPY-6(V)4, Aegis Baseline 10, and cooling system upgrades during a later depot modernization period.<ref name="DDGMOD" />

=== Production restarted ===
[[File:160421-N-YE579-005 (26543438313).jpg|thumb|A destroyer of the ''Zumwalt'' class, the next after the ''Arleigh Burke'' class. Only 3 out of 32 planned ''Zumwalt''s were built.]]

{{USS|Michael Murphy|DDG-112|}} was originally intended to be the last of the ''Arleigh Burke'' class. The Navy planned to shift production to the ''Zumwalt''-class destroyer focusing on NGFS and littoral operations.<ref>{{Cite web |last=O'Rourke |first=Ronald |title=Navy DDG-1000 and DDG-51 Destroyer Programs: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress |url=https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20081009_RL32109_d095159665886dd8927f8c540bed2b0ff2bf57eb.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210701072624/https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20081009_RL32109_d095159665886dd8927f8c540bed2b0ff2bf57eb.pdf |archive-date=2021-07-01 |access-date=2023-03-16 |website= |publisher=Congressional Research Service |pages=1–2, 5}}</ref> However, at a July 2008 hearing, Navy officials announced intentions to restart ''Arleigh Burke'' production in place of additional ''Zumwalt''s, testifying to the latter's inability to counter emerging ballistic missiles, anti-ship missiles, and [[Blue-water navy|blue-water]] submarines.<ref>{{Cite web |last=O'Rourke |first=Ronald |title=Navy DDG-1000 and DDG-51 Destroyer Programs: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress |url=https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20081009_RL32109_d095159665886dd8927f8c540bed2b0ff2bf57eb.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210701072624/https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20081009_RL32109_d095159665886dd8927f8c540bed2b0ff2bf57eb.pdf |archive-date=2021-07-01 |access-date=2023-03-16 |website= |publisher=Congressional Research Service |pages=1, 13–14, 53–54}}</ref> ''Arleigh Burke''-class destroyers have been in production for longer than any other [[surface combatant]] class in the U.S. Navy's history.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Sharp |first=David |date=2010-01-05 |title=After 2-plus decades, Arleigh Burke-class destroyer breaks record |url=https://www.fosters.com/story/lifestyle/2010/01/05/after-2-plus-decades-arleigh/51750620007/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230121175840/https://www.fosters.com/story/lifestyle/2010/01/05/after-2-plus-decades-arleigh/51750620007/ |archive-date=21 January 2023 |access-date=2023-01-21 |website=Foster's Daily Democrat |language=en-US}}</ref>

In April 2009, the Navy announced a plan limiting the ''Zumwalt'' class to three units while ordering another three ''Arleigh Burke''-class ships from both Bath Iron Works and Ingalls Shipbuilding.<ref name="restart">{{Cite web |last=Drew |first=Christopher |date=2009-04-08 |title=Contractors Agree on Deal to Build Stealth Destroyer |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/business/09defense.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171101233203/http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/business/09defense.html |archive-date=2017-11-01 |publisher=Navy Times}}</ref> In December 2009, Northrop Grumman received a $170.7&nbsp;million letter contract for {{USS|John Finn|DDG-113|}} long lead-time materials.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=4172 |title=Contracts for Wednesday, December 02, 2009 |publisher=Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs), U.S. Department of Defense |date=2 December 2009 |access-date=23 October 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100301230348/http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=4172 |archive-date=1 March 2010 |url-status=live}} Contract N00024-10-C-2308.</ref> Shipbuilding contracts for DDG-113 to [[DDG-115]] were awarded in mid-2011 for $679.6&nbsp;million–$783.6&nbsp;million;<ref>{{cite web |date=2011-09-26 |title=DDG 51 Class Ship Construction Contract Awards Announced |url=http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=62942 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180328165343/http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=62942 |archive-date=2018-03-28 |access-date=2011-10-23 |publisher=Naval Sea Systems Command Office of Corporate Communication}}</ref> these do not include government-furnished equipment such as weapons and sensors, which took the average cost of the FY2011/12 ships to about $1.843&nbsp;billion per vessel.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA543249 |title=Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress |id=RL32109 |date=19 April 2011 |first=Ronald |last=O'Rourke |publisher=Congressional Research Service |access-date=23 October 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121130074248/http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA543249 |archive-date=30 November 2012 |url-status=dead}} Since 1 and 2 ships are procured in alternate years and the "1 in a year" ships cost more, the fairest estimate of unit price comes from averaging three ships across two years. Funds are spent on long lead-time items in the year before the main procurement of each ship. DDG-114 and DDG-115 together cost $577.2&nbsp;million (FY2010) + $2.922&nbsp;billion (FY2011) = $3.499&nbsp;billion (p. 20), and DDG-116 cost $48&nbsp;million (FY2011) + $1.981&nbsp;billion (FY2012) = $2.029&nbsp;billion (p. 7), making an average for the three ships of about $1.843&nbsp;billion.</ref>

DDG-113 to DDG-115 are "restart" ships, similar to previous Flight IIA ships, but including modernization features such as OACE and the TB-37U MFTA, which are being backfit onto previous ships.<ref>{{Cite web |last= |title=Department of Defense: Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 Budget Estimates |url=https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/21pres/OPN_BA2_BOOK.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220121052553/https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/21pres/OPN_BA2_BOOK.pdf |archive-date=2022-01-21 |access-date=2023-02-08 |website= |publisher=U.S. Department of Defense |pages=12, 16}}</ref>

The U.S. Navy was considering extending the acquisition of ''Arleigh Burke''-class destroyers into the 2040s, according to revised procurement tables sent to Congress, with the procurement of Flight IV ships from 2032 through 2041.<ref>{{Cite web |last=LaGrone |first=Sam |date=14 June 2011 |title=US proposes Flight IV Arleigh Burke and life extension for command ships |url=http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065929797 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120914174113/http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065929797 |archive-date=14 September 2012 |access-date=2022-11-18 |website=Defense & Security Intelligence & Analysis: IHS Jane's |language=en}}</ref> This was canceled to cover the cost of the {{sclass|Columbia|submarine}}s, with the air defense commander role retained on one cruiser per [[carrier strike group]].<ref>{{cite news |last1=LaGrone |first1=Sam |date=14 July 2014 |title=Navy Cancelled New Destroyer Flight Due to Ohio Replacement Submarine Costs |website=USNI News |publisher=U.S. Naval Institute |url=http://news.usni.org/2014/07/14/navy-cancelled-new-destroyer-flight-due-ohio-replacement-submarine-costs |url-status=live |access-date=14 July 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140715081140/http://news.usni.org/2014/07/14/navy-cancelled-new-destroyer-flight-due-ohio-replacement-submarine-costs |archive-date=15 July 2014}}</ref>

In April 2022, the Navy proposed a procurement plan for nine ships, with an option for a tenth, to build two ships a year from 2023 to 2027. Some lawmakers pushed to add a third ship to be built in 2023, bringing the total of the proposed deal to eleven ships. This would follow the Navy's two-ship per year procurement from 2018 to 2022.<ref>{{cite web |last=Shelbourne |first=Mallory |date=25 April 2022 |title=Navy Puts Forth 9-ship Multi-Year Deal for Arleigh Burke Destroyers |url=https://news.usni.org/2022/04/25/navy-puts-forth-9-ship-multi-year-deal-for-arleigh-burke-destroyers |access-date=30 May 2022 |website=USNI News |publisher=U.S. Naval Institute |archive-date=24 May 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220524213930/https://news.usni.org/2022/04/25/navy-puts-forth-9-ship-multi-year-deal-for-arleigh-burke-destroyers |url-status=live }}</ref>

===Flight IIA Technology Insertion===
[[DDG-116]] to [[DDG-124]] and [[DDG-127]] will be "Technology Insertion" ships with elements of Flight III.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Vavasseur |first=Xavier |date=2021-10-02 |title=USS Carl Levin (DDG 120) Christened at Bath Iron Works |url=https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/News-Stories/Article/2798223/uss-carl-levin-ddg-120-christened-at-bath-iron-works/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.navy.mil%2FPress-Office%2FNews-Stories%2FArticle%2F2798223%2Fuss-carl-levin-ddg-120-christened-at-bath-iron-works%2F |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230524025433/https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/News-Stories/Article/2798223/uss-carl-levin-ddg-120-christened-at-bath-iron-works/ |archive-date=2023-05-24 |access-date=2023-05-23 |website=navy.mil |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Vavasseur |first=Xavier |date=2020-04-09 |title=HII Begins Fabrication Of DDG 51 Flight III Destroyer Ted Stevens |url=https://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/missile-defense-news/hii-begins-fabrication-of-ddg-51-flight-iii-destroyer-ted-stevens/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220518195310/https://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/missile-defense-news/hii-begins-fabrication-of-ddg-51-flight-iii-destroyer-ted-stevens/ |archive-date=2022-05-18 |access-date=2023-05-23 |website=Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance}}</ref> For example, {{USS|Delbert D. Black|DDG-119|}} and onwards have the [[AN/SPQ-9#SPQ-9B|AN/SPQ-9B]], a feature of Flight III, instead of the AN/SPS-67.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Northrop Grumman to Supply AN/SPQ-9B Radars for Three U.S.Navy Vessels |url=https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grumman-to-supply-an-spq-9b-radars-for-three-u-s-navy-vessels |access-date=2022-09-01 |website=Northrop Grumman Newsroom |language=en |archive-date=1 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220901040421/https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grumman-to-supply-an-spq-9b-radars-for-three-u-s-navy-vessels |url-status=live }}</ref> Flight III proper began with the third ship procured in 2016,<ref>{{cite news |last1=LaGrone |first1=Sam |date=1 May 2016 |title=Bath Iron Works Will Build First Flight III Arleigh Burke DDG |website=USNI News |publisher=U.S. Naval Institute |url=https://news.usni.org/2016/05/01/bath-iron-works-will-build-first-flight-iii-arleigh-burke-ddg |url-status=live |access-date=1 May 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160502120236/https://news.usni.org/2016/05/01/bath-iron-works-will-build-first-flight-iii-arleigh-burke-ddg |archive-date=2 May 2016}}</ref> {{USS|Jack H. Lucas|DDG-125|}}.<ref>{{Cite web |last=LaGrone |first=Sam |date=2017-06-28 |title=Huntington Ingalls Industries Awarded First Flight III Arleigh Burke Destroyer |url=https://news.usni.org/2017/06/28/hii-wins-award-build-first-flight-iii-arleigh-burke-destroyer |access-date=2023-01-23 |website=USNI News |language=en-US |archive-date=23 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230123235047/https://news.usni.org/2017/06/28/hii-wins-award-build-first-flight-iii-arleigh-burke-destroyer |url-status=live }}</ref>

=== Flight III ===
[[File:DDG-125 After Launch.jpg|thumb|upright=0.8|USS ''Jack H. Lucas'', the first Flight III destroyer, after her launch on 4 June 2021]]

In place of the canceled [[CG(X)]] program, the U.S. Navy began detailed design work on a DDG-51 Flight III design in FY2013.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer Flight III |url=https://amiinter.com/wnpr/pdfami/pdfex/amiproject.php?newcontID=630&countryID=68 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230523025321/https://amiinter.com/wnpr/pdfami/pdfex/amiproject.php?newcontID=630&countryID=68 |archive-date=2023-05-23 |access-date=2023-05-22 |website=Worldwide Naval Projections Report |publisher=AMI International |page=3}}</ref> The Navy planned to procure 24 Flight III ships from FY2016 to FY2031.<ref>{{Cite web |last=O'Rourke |first=Ronald |date=2010-06-14 |title=Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress |url=http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL32109_20100614.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140822162447/http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL32109_20100614.pdf |archive-date=2014-08-22 |publisher=Congressional Research Service |page=1 |id=RL32109}}</ref> In June 2013, it awarded $6.2&nbsp;billion in destroyer contracts.<ref>{{cite web |title=Contract View |url=http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=5056 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150714090059/http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=5056 |archive-date=14 July 2015 |access-date=27 October 2015}}</ref> Costs for the Flight III ships increased as requirements for the program grew, particularly related to the planned Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) needed for the IAMD role.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Fabey |first=Michael |date=10 June 2011 |title=Potential DDG-51 Flight III Requirements Growth Raises Alarms |url=https://aviationweek.com/potential-ddg-51-flight-iii-requirements-growth-raises-alarms |url-access=subscription |access-date=2022-11-18 |website=Aviation Week |archive-date=19 March 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230319040358/https://aviationweek.com/potential-ddg-51-flight-iii-requirements-growth-raises-alarms |url-status=live }}</ref> An AMDR with a mid-diameter of {{convert|22|ft|m}} had been proposed for CG(X), while the DDG-51 Flight III design could carry an AMDR with a mid-diameter of only {{convert|14|ft|m}}.<ref name="O'Rourke 11 p9">{{Cite web |last=O'Rourke |first=Ronald |date=2010-06-14 |title=Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress |url=http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL32109_20100614.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140822162447/http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL32109_20100614.pdf |archive-date=2014-08-22 |publisher=Congressional Research Service |page=9 |id=RL32109}}</ref> The [[Government Accountability Office]] (GAO) found that the design would be "at best marginally effective" because of the "now-shrunken radar". The U.S. Navy disagreed with the GAO findings, stating that the DDG-51 hull was "absolutely" capable of fitting a large enough radar to meet requirements.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Freedberg Jr. |first=Sydney |date=2012-10-05 |title=Navy Bets On Arleigh Burkes To Sail Until 2072; 40 Years Afloat For Some |url=https://breakingdefense.com/2012/10/navy-bets-on-arleigh-burkes-to-sail-until-2072-40-years-afloat/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220821041205/https://breakingdefense.com/2012/10/navy-bets-on-arleigh-burkes-to-sail-until-2072-40-years-afloat/ |archive-date=21 August 2022 |access-date=2022-11-18 |website=Breaking Defense |language=en-US}}</ref>

The Flight III's AN/SPY-6 AMDR with a mid-diameter of {{convert|14|ft|m}} uses an active electronically scanned array with digital [[beamforming]], compared to the previous passive electronically scanned array AN/SPY-1D with a mid-diameter of {{convert|12|ft|m}}.<ref name="O'Rourke 11 p9" /><ref>{{Cite web |date=30 March 2010 |title=Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs |url=https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-10-388sp.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220119001456/https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-10-388sp.pdf |archive-date=19 January 2022 |access-date=2022-11-18 |website= |publisher=Government Accountability Office}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=July 2016 |title=Shielded from Oversight: The Disastrous US Approach to Strategic Missile Defense |url=https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/07/Shielded-from-Oversight-appendix-10.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221225060029/http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/07/Shielded-from-Oversight-appendix-10.pdf |archive-date=2022-12-25 |access-date=2023-05-22 |publisher=[[Union of Concerned Scientists]] |page=7}}</ref> According to the SPY-6's contractor [[RTX Corporation|Raytheon]], the 37-RMA SPY-6(V)1 is 30 times more sensitive and capable of detecting objects "half the size at twice the distance" compared to the SPY-1D.<ref name="AMDR">{{Cite web |title=Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) / AN/SPY-6 |url=https://missilethreat.csis.org/defsys/amdr/ |access-date=2022-08-30 |website=Missile Threat |language=en-US |archive-date=15 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230115205832/https://missilethreat.csis.org/defsys/amdr/ |url-status=live }}</ref> The Flight III's SPY-6 is integrated with Aegis Baseline 10.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Biehn |first=Andrew |title=AEGIS Baseline 10 and SPY-6 Integration & Path to Navy Operational Architecture (NOA) |url=https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/Exhibits/SAS2021/SAS2021-AEGIS_and_Forge.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210805031834/https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/Exhibits/SAS2021/SAS2021-AEGIS_and_Forge.pdf |archive-date=2021-08-05 |access-date=2023-01-23 |publisher=Naval Sea Systems Command}}</ref> The new radar also requires more power; the three-megawatt, 450&nbsp;V AG9140 generators were upgraded to four-megawatt, 4,160&nbsp;V AG9160 generators.<ref name="FltIII changes" /><ref name="AG9160" /> Additionally, the air conditioning plants were upgraded to increase the ships' cooling capacity.<ref name="DDG 51 Update" /> The area near where the two [[Rigid inflatable boat|rigid-hull inflatable boats]] (RHIBs) are stored was enclosed to accommodate additional crew, so the RHIBs are stacked.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2017-01-21 |title=SNA 2017: Huntington Ingalls Industries Unveils Scale Model of DDG 51 Flight III Design |url=https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/naval-news/naval-exhibitions/2017-archives/sna-2017-show-daily-news/4816-sna-2017-huntington-ingalls-industries-unveils-scale-model-of-ddg-51-flight-iii-design.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221201031017/https://navyrecognition.com/index.php/naval-news/naval-exhibitions/2017-archives/sna-2017-show-daily-news/4816-sna-2017-huntington-ingalls-industries-unveils-scale-model-of-ddg-51-flight-iii-design.html |archive-date=2022-12-01 |access-date=2023-05-22 |website=Navy Recognition |language=}}</ref> Other modifications include replacement of the [[Bromotrifluoromethane|Halon]]-based fire suppression system with a water mist system and strengthening of the hull to support the design's additional weight.<ref name="DDG 51 Update">{{Cite web |last=Miller |first=Seth |date=2022-01-12 |title=DDG 51 Program Update |url=https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/Exhibits/SNA2022/SNA2022-CAPTSethMiller-DDG51Update.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221121224824/https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/Exhibits/SNA2022/SNA2022-CAPTSethMiller-DDG51Update.pdf |archive-date=2022-11-21 |access-date=2023-05-22 |publisher=Naval Sea Systems Command |page=5}}</ref>

14 Flight III ships have been ordered,<ref>{{Cite web |last=O'Rourke |first=Ronald |date=2023-12-20 |title=Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress |url=https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RL32109.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231227030311/https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RL32109.pdf |archive-date=2023-12-27 |access-date=2023-12-28 |publisher=Congressional Research Service |page=11 |id=RL32109}}</ref> and Flight III IOC is planned for 2024.<ref>{{Cite web |title=DDG 51 ARLEIGH BURKE CLASS GUIDED MISSILE DESTROYER (DDG 51): December 2021 Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) |url=https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/FY_2021_SARS/22-F-0762_DDG_51_SAR_2021.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230904091037/https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/FY_2021_SARS/22-F-0762_DDG_51_SAR_2021.pdf |archive-date=4 September 2023 |access-date=7 October 2023 |publisher=Washington Headquarters Services |page=6}}</ref> The U.S. Navy may procure up to 42 Flight III ships for an overall total of 117 ships of the class.<ref name="Now Hear This">{{cite web |last=McCullough |first=Bernard |date=2013-01-29 |title=Now Hear This - The Right Destroyer at the Right Time |url=https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2013/january/now-hear-right-destroyer-right-time |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230319032539/https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2013/january/now-hear-right-destroyer-right-time |archive-date=2023-03-19 |access-date=2023-03-18 |publisher=U.S. Naval Institute}}</ref>

==Replacement==
{{main|DDG(X)}}
[[File:DDG(X) SNA 2022.png|thumb|DDG(X) concept from [[Naval Sea Systems Command Program Executive Offices#Program Executive Office Ships (PEO Ships)|Program Executive Office Ships]] as presented in the 2022 Surface Navy Association symposium]]

In April 2014, the U.S. Navy began the development of a new destroyer to replace the ''Arleigh Burke'' class called the "Future Surface Combatant". The new class is expected to enter service in the 2030s and initially serve alongside the Flight III ''Arleigh Burke''s. The destroyer class will incorporate emerging technologies like lasers, onboard power-generation systems, increased automation, and next-generation weapons, sensors, and electronics. They will use technologies from other platforms, such as the ''Zumwalt''-class destroyer, [[littoral combat ship]]s, and the {{sclass|Gerald R. Ford|aircraft carrier}}.<ref name="military.com">{{Cite web |last=Osborn |first=Kris |date=9 April 2014 |title=Navy Makes Plans for New Destroyer for 2030s |url=https://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/04/09/navy-makes-plans-for-new-destroyer-for-2030s.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140413144015/http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/04/09/navy-makes-plans-for-new-destroyer-for-2030s.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm |archive-date=13 April 2014 |access-date=9 April 2014 |website=Military.com |language=en}}</ref>

The Future Surface Combatant may place importance on the ''Zumwalt''-class destroyer's electric drive system that provides propulsion while generating 58 megawatts of electrical power, levels required to operate future [[directed energy weapon]]s. Initial requirements for the Future Surface Combatant emphasize lethality and survivability. The ships must also be modular to allow for inexpensive upgrades of weaponry, electronics, computing, and sensors over time as threats evolve.<ref name="military.com"/> The Future Surface Combatant has evolved into the Large Surface Combatant, which became the [[DDG(X)]].<ref>{{cite web |last=Eckstein |first=Megan |url=https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2021/06/04/navy-creates-ddgx-program-office-after-years-of-delays-for-large-combatant-replacement/ |title=US Navy creates DDG(X) program office after years of delays for large combatant replacement |work=DefenseNews |date=4 June 2021 |access-date=19 February 2022 |archive-date=5 June 2021 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20210605131159/https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2021/06/04/navy-creates-ddgx-program-office-after-years-of-delays-for-large-combatant-replacement/ |url-status=live }}</ref> The Navy plans to procure the first DDG(X) in FY2032.<ref name="DDG(X)" />

==Operational history==
[[File:US Navy 030322-N-1035L-002 The guided missile destroyer USS Milius (DDG 69) launches a Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) toward Iraq.jpg|thumb|{{USS|Milius|DDG-69|6}} launches a TLAM toward Iraq, first days of the [[Iraq War]] in 2003]]

The class saw its first combat action through Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) strikes against Iraq.<ref>{{Cite web |title=History |url=https://www.surflant.usff.navy.mil/Organization/Operational-Forces/Destroyers/USS-Laboon-DDG-58/About-Us/History/ |access-date=2023-03-02 |website=surflant.usff.navy.mil |archive-date=2 March 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230302173805/https://www.surflant.usff.navy.mil/Organization/Operational-Forces/Destroyers/USS-Laboon-DDG-58/About-Us/History/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Over 3 and 4 September 1996, {{USS|Laboon|DDG-58|6}} and {{USS|Russell|DDG-59|6}} launched thirteen and eight TLAMs, respectively, as part of [[1996 cruise missile strikes on Iraq|Operation Desert Strike]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Truver |first=Scott |date=1997-05-01 |title=The U.S. Navy in Review |url=https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1997/may/us-navy-review |access-date=2023-03-02 |publisher=U.S. Naval Institute |language=en |archive-date=2 March 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230302173808/https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1997/may/us-navy-review |url-status=live }}</ref> In December 1998, ''Arleigh Burke''-class destroyers again performed TLAM strikes as part of [[Operation Desert Fox]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=Photo: A Tomahawk cruise missile is fired from an Arleigh Burke class destroyer |url=https://www.upi.com/News_Photos/view/upi/32f507f836ac3ebd6589efebe2d360ab/A-Tomahawk-cruise-missile-is-fired-from-an-Arleigh-Burke-class-destroyer/ |access-date=2023-01-03 |website=UPI |language=en |archive-date=25 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201125020405/https://www.upi.com/News_Photos/view/upi/32f507f836ac3ebd6589efebe2d360ab/A-Tomahawk-cruise-missile-is-fired-from-an-Arleigh-Burke-class-destroyer/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Eleven ''Arleigh Burke''s supported carrier strike groups engaged in [[Iraq War|Operation Iraqi Freedom]], which included TLAM launches against ground targets during the operation's opening stages in 2003.<ref name="Tucker p376" /><ref>{{Cite web |title=030322-N-1035L-002 |url=http://www.navy.mil/view_image.asp?id=5554 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160305150817/http://www.navy.mil/view_image.asp?id=5554 |archive-date=5 March 2016 |access-date=3 January 2023 |website=navy.mil}}</ref>

In October 2011, the Navy announced that four ''Arleigh Burke''-class destroyers would be forward-deployed in Europe to support the [[NATO missile defence system|NATO missile defense system]]. The ships, to be based at [[Naval Station Rota]], Spain, were named in February 2012 as ''Ross'', ''Donald Cook'', ''Porter'', and ''Carney''.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2012-02-16 |title=Navy Names Forward Deployed Ships to Rota, Spain |url=http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=65393 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180523194515/http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=65393 |archive-date=2018-05-23 |website=navy.mil}}</ref> By reducing travel times to station, this forward deployment allows for six other destroyers to be shifted from the Atlantic in support of the [[East Asian foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration|Pivot to East Asia]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Fabey |first=Michael |date=1 April 2013 |title=NavWeek: Keeping Asian Waters Pacific |url=https://aviationweek.com/navweek-keeping-asian-waters-pacific |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230319033704/https://aviationweek.com/navweek-keeping-asian-waters-pacific |archive-date=19 March 2023 |access-date=16 March 2023 |website=Aviation Week}}</ref> Russia threatened to quit the [[New START]] treaty over this deployment, calling it a threat to their nuclear deterrent.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kozin |first=Vladimir |date=2014-02-18 |title=Time to Sign a Super New START |url=https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2014/02/18/time-to-sign-a-super-new-start-a32201 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221129023917/https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2014/02/18/time-to-sign-a-super-new-start-a32201 |archive-date=2022-11-29 |access-date=2023-05-20 |website=The Moscow Times |language=en}}</ref> In 2018, CNO Admiral [[John M. Richardson (admiral)|John Richardson]] criticized the policy of keeping six highly mobile BMD platforms "in a little tiny box, defending land", a role that he believed could be performed equally well at less cost by shore-based systems.<ref>{{cite web |last=Larter |first=David |date=23 June 2018 |title=As threats mount, US Navy grapples with costly ballistic missile defense mission |url=https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/06/23/as-threats-mount-us-navy-grapples-with-costly-ballistic-missile-defense-mission/ |access-date=18 December 2018 |publisher=defensenews.com }}</ref>

In October 2016, the ''Arleigh Burke''-class destroyers ''Mason'' and ''Nitze'' were deployed to the coast of Yemen after a [[HSV-2 Swift|UAE auxiliary ship]] was struck in an attack for which [[Houthi movement|Houthi rebels]] claimed responsibility.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Tomlinson |first=Lucas |date=2016-10-03 |title=US warships sent to area where Iran-backed rebels attacked Saudi-led coalition ship |url=https://www.foxnews.com/world/us-warships-sent-to-area-where-iran-backed-rebels-attacked-saudi-led-coalition-ship |access-date=2022-09-02 |website=Fox News |language=en-US |archive-date=22 September 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180922084516/http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/10/03/us-warships-sent-to-area-where-iran-backed-rebels-attacked-saudi-led-coalition-ship.html |url-status=live }}</ref> On 9 October, while in the [[Red Sea]], ''Mason'' detected two anti-ship missiles headed toward herself and nearby USS ''Ponce'' fired from Houthi-controlled territory. ''Mason'' launched two SM-2s, one ESSM, and a Nulka decoy. One AShM was confirmed to have struck the water on its own, and it is unknown if the second missile was intercepted or hit the water on its own.<ref>{{Cite web |last=LaGrone |first=Sam |date=2016-10-11 |title=USS Mason Fired 3 Missiles to Defend From Yemen Cruise Missiles Attack |url=https://news.usni.org/2016/10/11/uss-mason-fired-3-missiles-to-defend-from-yemen-cruise-missiles-attack |access-date=2022-09-02 |website=USNI News |language=en-US |archive-date=9 August 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180809090937/https://news.usni.org/2016/10/11/uss-mason-fired-3-missiles-to-defend-from-yemen-cruise-missiles-attack |url-status=live }}</ref> On 12 October, in the [[Bab-el-Mandeb|Bab el-Mandeb]] strait, ''Mason'' again detected an inbound anti-ship missile, which was intercepted at a range of {{convert|8|mi}} by an SM-2.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Copp |first=Tara |title=Aegis defense system helped stop missile attack on USS Mason |url=https://www.stripes.com/news/aegis-defense-system-helped-stop-missile-attack-on-uss-mason-1.433974 |access-date=2022-09-02 |website=Stars and Stripes |language=en |archive-date=2 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220902043119/https://www.stripes.com/news/aegis-defense-system-helped-stop-missile-attack-on-uss-mason-1.433974 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="navytimes">{{Cite web |last=Ziezulewicz |first=Geoff |date=2017-11-03 |title=Four ship crews receive Combat Action Ribbon |url=https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2017/11/03/four-ship-crews-receive-combat-action-ribbon/ |access-date=2022-09-02 |website=Navy Times |language=en |archive-date=18 April 2021 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20210418095811/https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2017/11/03/four-ship-crews-receive-combat-action-ribbon/ |url-status=live }}</ref> On 13 October, ''Nitze'' conducted TLAM strikes destroying three Houthi radar sites used in the previous attacks.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Stewart |first=Phil |date=2016-10-13 |title=U.S. military strikes Yemen after missile attacks on U.S. Navy ship |language=en |work=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-security-missiles-idUSKCN12C294 |access-date=2022-09-05 |archive-date=25 May 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190525223834/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-security-missiles-idUSKCN12C294 |url-status=live }}</ref> Back in the Red Sea, ''Mason'' experienced a third attack on 15 October with five AShMs. She fired SM-2s and decoys, destroying or neutralizing four missiles. ''Nitze'' neutralized the fifth missile with a radar decoy.<ref name="navytimes" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=LaGrone |first=Sam |date=2016-10-16 |title=USS Mason 'Appears to Have Come Under Attack' |url=https://news.usni.org/2016/10/15/cno-richardson-uss-mason-attacked-cruise-missiles-off-yemen |access-date=2022-09-02 |website=USNI News |language=en-US |archive-date=2 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220902043118/https://news.usni.org/2016/10/15/cno-richardson-uss-mason-attacked-cruise-missiles-off-yemen |url-status=live }}</ref>

On 7 April 2017, the ''Arleigh Burke''-class destroyers ''Ross'' and ''Porter'' conducted a [[2017 Shayrat missile strike|TLAM strike]] against Shayrat Airfield, Syria, in response to Syrian President [[Bashar Assad]]'s [[Khan Shaykhun chemical attack|chemical attack]] on his people three days prior.<ref name="wapo-1">{{cite news |last1=Lamothe |first1=Dan |last2=Ryan |first2=Missy |last3=Gibbons-Neff |first3=Thomas |date=2017-04-06 |title=U.S. strikes Syrian military airfield in first direct assault on Bashar al-Assad's government |newspaper=The Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-weighing-military-options-following-chemical-weapons-attack-in-syria/2017/04/06/0c59603a-1ae8-11e7-9887-1a5314b56a08_story.html |access-date=2023-01-26 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170407024143/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-weighing-military-options-following-chemical-weapons-attack-in-syria/2017/04/06/0c59603a-1ae8-11e7-9887-1a5314b56a08_story.html |archive-date=2017-04-07}}</ref> The ships fired a total of 59 Tomahawk missiles.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Strikes On Shayrat Airfield, Syria: Areas of Impact |url=https://www.defense.gov/Multimedia/Photos/igphoto/2001728631/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220930073805/https://www.defense.gov/Multimedia/Photos/igphoto/2001728631/ |archive-date=2022-09-30 |access-date=2023-01-26 |publisher=U.S. Department of Defense}}</ref> On 14 April 2018, ''Laboon'' and [[USS Higgins|''Higgins'']] conducted another [[2018 missile strikes against Syria|TLAM strike]] against Syria. They fired seven and twenty-three TLAMs, respectively. The strike targeted chemical weapon sites as part of a continued effort against Assad's use of chemical warfare.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Rogoway |first1=Tyler |last2=Trevithick |first2=Joseph |date= 14 April 2018|title=Here Are All The Details The Pentagon Just Released Regarding Its Missile Attack On Syria (Updated) |url=https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20120/heres-all-the-details-the-pentagon-just-released-regarding-its-missile-attack-on-syria |access-date=2023-02-18 |website=The Drive |language=en |archive-date=19 February 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230219003816/https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20120/heres-all-the-details-the-pentagon-just-released-regarding-its-missile-attack-on-syria |url-status=live }}</ref> The ''Arleigh Burke''-class destroyers ''Donald Cook'' and ''Winston S. Churchill'' took positions in the Mediterranean prior to the 2018 strike to mislead defending forces.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Leoni |first=Victoria |date=2018-04-17 |title=How the US positioned its warships to trick Russia ahead of Syrian strikes |url=https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2018/04/17/how-the-us-positioned-its-warships-to-trick-russia-ahead-of-syrian-strikes/ |access-date=2023-02-18 |website=Navy Times |language=en }}</ref>

In October and November 2023, the ''Arleigh Burke''-class destroyers ''Carney'' and ''[[USS Thomas Hudner|Thomas Hudner]]'', while deployed in the Red Sea, shot down numerous drones and missiles. On 19 October, ''Carney'' shot down at least three cruise missiles and eight drones that were potentially targeting Israel.<ref>{{Cite web |last= |first= |title=US Navy destroyer in Red Sea shoots down cruise missiles fired by Houthis in Yemen: Pentagon |url=https://abcnews.go.com/International/security-incident-involving-us-navy-destroyer-red-sea/story?id=104147141 |access-date=2023-11-30 |website=ABC News |language=en}}</ref> On 15 and 22 November, ''Thomas Hudner'' shot down numerous drones launched by Houthi rebels from Yemen.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Mongilio |first=Heather |date=22 November 2023 |title="USS Thomas Hudner Downs Multiple Drones Launched from Yemen" |work=USNI News |url=https://news.usni.org/2023/11/22/uss-thomas-hudner-downs-multiple-drones-launched-from-yemen |access-date=30 November 2023}}</ref> On 27 November, ''Carney'' detected two ballistic missile launches from Houthi-controlled territory headed toward herself and nearby M/V ''Central Park''; they splashed ten 10 nautical miles away.<ref>{{cite web |last=Shelbourne |first=Mallory |date=26 November 2023 |title=U.S. Navy Detains 5 After Failed Attempt to Capture Merchant Ship, IKE in Persian Gulf |url=https://news.usni.org/2023/11/26/u-s-warships-monitoring-potential-oil-tanker-seizure-in-gulf-of-aden |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231207005617/https://news.usni.org/2023/11/26/u-s-warships-monitoring-potential-oil-tanker-seizure-in-gulf-of-aden |archive-date=7 December 2023 |access-date=6 December 2023 |website=USNI News}}</ref> On 29 November, ''Carney'' intercepted another Houthi missile.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Mongilio |first=Heather |date=29 November 2023 |title=CENTCOM: Iranian Drone Made Unsafe Pass by USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, USS Carney Downs Houthi Missile |work=USNI News |url=https://news.usni.org/2023/11/29/iranian-drone-flew-near-uss-dwight-d-eisenhower-in-unsafe-manner-centcom-says |access-date=30 November 2023}}</ref> On 30 December, [[USS Gravely|''Gravely'']] shot down two anti-ship ballistic missiles fired from Houthi-controlled territory at herself and nearby container ship ''[[Maersk Hangzhou]]''.<ref>{{Cite web |last=LaGrone |first=Sam |date=2023-12-31 |title=U.S. Navy Helo Crews Kill Houthi Assault Boat Teams After Red Sea Attack |url=https://news.usni.org/2023/12/31/u-s-navy-helo-crews-kill-houthi-assault-boat-teams-after-red-sea-attack |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231231172231/https://news.usni.org/2023/12/31/u-s-navy-helo-crews-kill-houthi-assault-boat-teams-after-red-sea-attack |archive-date=2023-12-31 |access-date=2024-01-01 |website=USNI News}}</ref>

==Accidents and major incidents==
===USS ''Cole'' bombing===
{{Main|l1=USS ''Cole'' bombing|USS Cole bombing}}
[[File:USS Cole (DDG-67) Departs.jpg|thumb|USS ''Cole'' being towed from the port city of Aden after the bombing. Blast damage to the hull is visible mid-ship.]]

{{USS|Cole|DDG-67|6}} was damaged on 12 October 2000 in [[Aden]], Yemen, while docked by an attack in which a [[shaped charge]] of 200–300&nbsp;kg in a boat was placed against the hull and detonated by [[suicide attack|suicide bombers]], killing 17 crew members. The ship was repaired and returned to duty in 2001.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Cox |first=Samuel |date=October 2020 |title=H-055-3: Attack on USS Cole (DDG-67) – October 2000 |url=https://www.history.navy.mil/about-us/leadership/director/directors-corner/h-grams/h-gram-055/h-055-3.html |access-date=2023-01-26 |website=Naval History and Heritage Command |language=en-US |archive-date=18 February 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230218233224/https://www.history.navy.mil/about-us/leadership/director/directors-corner/h-grams/h-gram-055/h-055-3.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

===USS ''Porter'' and MV ''Otowasan'' collision===
{{anchor|USS Porter and MV Otowasan collision}}
{{See also|USS Porter (DDG-78)#2012 collision|label 1=USS ''Porter'' (DDG-78) § 2012 collision}}
On 12 August 2012, USS ''Porter'' collided with the oil tanker MV ''Otowasan'' near the Strait of Hormuz; there were no injuries. The U.S. Navy removed ''Porter''{{'}}s commanding officer from duty. Repairs took two months at a cost of $700,000.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Truver |first1=Scott |last2=Holzer |first2=Robert |date=2013-05-01 |title=U.S. Navy in Review |url=https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2013/may/us-navy-review |access-date=2023-01-26 |publisher=U.S. Naval Institute |language=en |archive-date=26 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230126021559/https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2013/may/us-navy-review |url-status=live }}</ref>

===USS ''Fitzgerald'' and MV ''ACX Crystal'' collision===
{{main|l1=USS ''Fitzgerald'' and MV ''ACX Crystal'' collision|USS Fitzgerald and MV ACX Crystal collision}}
On 17 June 2017, {{USS|Fitzgerald|DDG-62|}} collided with the MV ''ACX Crystal'' cargo ship near Yokosuka, Japan. Seven sailors drowned. Following an investigation, the ship's commanding officer, executive officer, and Command Master Chief Petty Officer were relieved of their duties. In addition, close to a dozen sailors were given non-judicial punishment for losing situational awareness. Repairs were originally to be completed by the summer of 2019. However, initial repairs were made by February 2020. After the subsequent sea trials, she was brought in for additional repairs. The ship departed for her home port in June 2020.<ref>{{Cite web |title=USS Fitzgerald En Route to San Diego |url=https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Media/News/SavedNewsModule/Article/2219241/uss-fitzgerald-en-route-to-san-diego/ |access-date=2022-11-18 |website=Naval Sea Systems Command |language=en-US |archive-date=18 November 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221118173910/https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Media/News/SavedNewsModule/Article/2219241/uss-fitzgerald-en-route-to-san-diego/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

===USS ''John S. McCain'' and ''Alnic MC'' collision===
{{Main|l1=USS ''John S. McCain'' and ''Alnic MC'' collision|USS John S. McCain and Alnic MC collision}}
On 21 August 2017, [[USS John S. McCain (DDG-56)|USS ''John S. McCain'']] collided with the container ship ''Alnic MC''. The collision injured 48 sailors and killed 10, whose bodies were all recovered by 27 August. The cause of the collision was determined to be poor communication between the two ships and the bridge crew lacking situational awareness. In the aftermath, the ship's top leadership, including the commanding officer, executive officer, and Command Master Chief Petty Officer, were removed from command. In addition, top leadership of the U.S. Seventh Fleet, including the commander, Vice Admiral Joseph Aucoin, were relieved of their duties due to a loss of confidence in their ability to command. Other commanders who were relieved included Rear Admiral Charles Williams, commander of Task Force 70, and Captain Jeffrey Bennett, commodore of Destroyer Squadron 15. This was the third incident involving a U.S. Navy ship in 2017, with a repair cost of over $100&nbsp;million.<ref name="ntsb">{{cite web |author=<!--Not stated--> |date=6 August 2019 |title=NTSB Accident Report on Fatal 2017 USS John McCain Collision off Singapore |url=https://news.usni.org/2019/08/06/ntsb-accident-report-on-fatal-2017-uss-john-mccain-collision-off-singapore |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200624065719/http://news.usni.org/2019/08/06/ntsb-accident-report-on-fatal-2017-uss-john-mccain-collision-off-singapore |archive-date=24 June 2020 |access-date=8 August 2020 |website=USNI News}}</ref>

==Contractors==
*Builders: 38 units constructed by [[Bath Iron Works|General Dynamics, Bath Iron Works Division]], and 35 by [[Huntington Ingalls Industries]] (formerly [[Northrop Grumman Ship Systems]]), [[Ingalls Shipbuilding]]<ref name="contractors">{{Cite web |last=O'Rourke |first=Ronald |date=2023-12-20 |title=Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress |url=https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RL32109.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231227030311/https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RL32109.pdf |archive-date=2023-12-27 |access-date=2023-12-28 |publisher=Congressional Research Service |page=4 |id=RL32109}}</ref>
*AN/SPY-1 radar and Aegis Combat System integrator: [[Lockheed Martin]]<ref name="contractors" />
*AN/SPY-6 radar: [[RTX Corporation|Raytheon]]<ref name="contractors" />

==Ships in class==
{{Main|List of Arleigh Burke-class destroyers|l1=List of ''Arleigh Burke''-class destroyers}}

== Derivatives ==
Destroyer classes based on the ''Arleigh Burke'' have been adopted by the following naval forces:<ref name="USNI Maya" /><ref name="LaGrone STG">{{Cite web |title=Sejong the Great class Destroyer - ROK Navy |url=https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/132-republic-of-korea-navy-vessels-ships-and-equipment/rok-navy-frigates-a-destroyers/844-sejong-the-great-sejongdaewang-kdx-iii-class-aegis-destroyer-republic-of-korea-rok-navy-yulgok-yi-i-seoae-yu-seong-ryong-hyundai-heavy-industries-hhi-dsme-datasheet-pictures-photos-video-specifications.html |access-date=2023-01-25 |website=Navy Recognition |archive-date=25 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230125171807/https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/132-republic-of-korea-navy-vessels-ships-and-equipment/rok-navy-frigates-a-destroyers/844-sejong-the-great-sejongdaewang-kdx-iii-class-aegis-destroyer-republic-of-korea-rok-navy-yulgok-yi-i-seoae-yu-seong-ryong-hyundai-heavy-industries-hhi-dsme-datasheet-pictures-photos-video-specifications.html |url-status=live }}</ref>
*{{flagicon|Japan}} The [[Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force|Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force]]:
**{{sclass|Atago|destroyer|1}}<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Kōda |first=Yōji |author-link=:simple:Yoji Koda |date=December 2015 |title=History of Domestic Built Destroyers of JMSDF |journal=[[:ja:世界の艦船|Ships of the World]] |language=ja |publisher=[[:ja:海人社|Kaijin-sha]] |issue=827 |id={{NAID|40020655404}}}}</ref>
**{{sclass|Kongō|destroyer|1}}<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Ishī |first=Kōyū |date=December 2019 |title=Overview of World's Aegis ships: Kongo-class |journal=Ships of the World |language=ja |publisher=Kaijin-sha |issue=913 |pages=88–89 |id={{NAID|40022058771}}}}</ref>
**{{sclass|Maya|destroyer|1}}<ref name="USNI Maya">{{Cite web |last=Wertheim |first=Eric |date=2020-12-01 |title=Japan's New Aegis DDG |url=https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2020/december/japans-new-aegis-ddg |access-date=2023-01-25 |publisher=U.S. Naval Institute |language=en |archive-date=19 October 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221019225228/https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2020/december/japans-new-aegis-ddg |url-status=live }}</ref>

*{{flagicon|South Korea}} The [[Republic of Korea Navy]]:
**{{sclass|Sejong the Great|destroyer|1}}<ref name="LaGrone STG" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=LaGrone |first=Sam |date=2016-08-15 |title=Report: South Korea Wants BMD Capability for Destroyers |url=https://news.usni.org/2016/08/15/report-south-korea-wants-bmd-capability-guided-missile-destroyers |access-date=2023-01-25 |website=USNI News |language=en-US |archive-date=15 August 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160815133049/https://news.usni.org/2016/08/15/report-south-korea-wants-bmd-capability-guided-missile-destroyers |url-status=live }}</ref>

== In popular culture ==
The 2009 film ''[[Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen]]'' features USS ''Preble''.<ref name="cds21">[http://www.cds21.navy.mil/] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120502102200/http://www.cds21.navy.mil/|date=2 May 2012}}</ref>{{Failed verification|date=May 2023}}

The 2012 film ''[[Battleship (film)|Battleship]]'' features {{USS|John Paul Jones|DDG-53|6}}, {{USS|Benfold|DDG-65|6}}, and {{USS|Sampson|DDG-102|6}}.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2014-01-08 |title=San Diego-Based Destroyers To Be Transferred To Hawaii This Summer |url=https://www.kpbs.org/news/military/2014/01/08/san-diego-based-destroyers-be-transferred-hawaii-s |access-date=2023-02-18 |website=KPBS Public Media |archive-date=19 February 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230219013729/https://www.kpbs.org/news/military/2014/01/08/san-diego-based-destroyers-be-transferred-hawaii-s |url-status=live }}</ref>

The 2013 film ''[[Captain Phillips (film)|Captain Phillips]]'' features USS ''Truxtun'', which stood in for the ship from the true event, USS ''Bainbridge''.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Vincent |first=Mal |date=2013-10-11 |title=Navy helped bring "Captain Phillips" to Norfolk |url=https://www.pilotonline.com/entertainment/article_32f9dc47-7510-566e-a65d-10ecbebbe818.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201024040259/https://www.pilotonline.com/entertainment/article_32f9dc47-7510-566e-a65d-10ecbebbe818.html |archive-date=2020-10-24 |access-date=2023-05-20 |website=[[The Virginian-Pilot]]}}</ref>

The 2014 television series ''[[The Last Ship (TV series)|The Last Ship]]'', loosely based on the 1988 novel of [[The Last Ship (novel)|the same name]], is set on the fictional {{USS|Nathan James}}.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Littlejohn |first1=Donna |last2=Kuznia |first2=Rob |last3=Mazza |first3=Sandy |date=2014-01-06 |title=South Bay, Harbor Area communities work to attract more filming |url=https://www.dailybreeze.com/2014/01/06/south-bay-harbor-area-communities-work-to-attract-more-filming/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230128032247/https://www.dailybreeze.com/2014/01/06/south-bay-harbor-area-communities-work-to-attract-more-filming/ |archive-date=2023-01-28 |access-date=2023-01-27 |work=[[Daily Breeze]]}}</ref> Its hull designation in the book is DDG-80, but it was changed to DDG-151 for the television series to avoid confusion with the real-life [[USS Roosevelt (DDG-80)|USS ''Roosevelt'']], which did not exist when the book was written. {{USS|Halsey|DDG-97}}, a Flight IIA ''Arleigh Burke''-class destroyer, stood in for ''Nathan James'' during filming.<ref>{{cite web |last=Webb |first=Justin |date=2012-11-09 |title=Naval Base San Diego; USS Halsey featured in "The Last Ship" |url=http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=70567 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180810163012/http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=70567 |archive-date=2018-08-10 |access-date=2023-01-27 |website=navy.mil}}</ref>

==See also==
* [[List of naval ship classes in service]]
* [[List of current ships of the United States Navy]]

==Notes==
{{Reflist|group=N}}

==References==
=== Citations ===
{{Reflist}}

=== Bibliography ===
{{refbegin}}
* {{cite book |last=Baker |first=A. D. |title=The Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World, 1998–1999: Their Ships, Aircraft, and Systems |location=Annapolis, Maryland |publisher=Naval Institute Press |year=1998 |isbn=1-55750-111-4}}
* {{cite magazine |last=Ewing |first=Philip |title=Analyst: DDGs without CIWS vulnerable |magazine=[[Navy Times]] |date=16 September 2008 |url=http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/09/navy_ciws_091508w/ |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120527023526/http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/09/navy_ciws_091508w/ |url-status=dead |archive-date=27 May 2012}}
* {{Cite book |last=Friedman |first=Norman |url=https://archive.org/details/usdestroyersillu0000frie/ |title=U.S. Destroyers: An Illustrated Design History |publisher=Naval Institute Press |year=1982 |isbn=9780853685210 |location=Annapolis, Maryland |url-access=registration}}
* {{cite book |last1=Gardiner |first1=Robert |last2=Chumbley |first2=Stephen |date=1995 |url=https://archive.org/details/conwaysallworlds0000unse_i1t7/ |title=Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1947–1995 |location=Annapolis, Maryland |url-access=registration |publisher=Naval Institute Press |isbn=1-55750-132-7}}
* {{Cite book |last=Polmar |first=Norman |url=https://archive.org/details/navalinstitutegu0000polm_19ed/ |title=The Naval Institute Guide to Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet |publisher=Naval Institute Press |year=2013 |isbn=9781591146872 |edition=19th |location=Annapolis, Maryland |url-access=registration}}
* {{Cite book |url=https://archive.org/details/janes-fighting-ships-2015-2016/ |title=Jane's Fighting Ships 2015–2016 |publisher=[[Janes Information Services|Janes Information Group]] |year=2015 |isbn=978-0710631435 |editor-last=Saunders |editor-first=Stephen}}
* {{cite book |last=Wertheim |first=Eric |url=https://archive.org/details/navalinstitutegu0000unse_j3x1/ |title=The Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World, 2005–2006: Their Ships, Aircraft, and Systems |location=Annapolis, Maryland |url-access=registration |publisher=Naval Institute Press |year=2005 |isbn=978-1591149347}}
{{refend}}

==Further reading==
* {{cite book |last=Sanders |first= Michael S. |date= 1999 |title= The Yard: Building a Destroyer at the Bath Iron Works |location= New York |publisher= HarperCollins |isbn= 0-06-019246-1 |url-access= registration |url= https://archive.org/details/yard00mich}} Describes the construction of {{USS|Donald Cook|DDG-75}} at [[Bath Iron Works]].

==External links==
{{Commons category|Arleigh Burke class destroyers}}
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20110725231406/http://destroyerhistory.org/arleighburkeclass/ ''Arleigh Burke''-class destroyers] at [https://web.archive.org/web/20090219202357/http://destroyerhistory.org/ Destroyer History Foundation]
* [http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/burke ''Arleigh Burke'' class (Aegis) page on naval-technology.com]
* [http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2873 ''Arleigh Burke'' Flight I & Flight II Class destroyer- United States Navy on navyrecognition.com]