[ Post a Response | The SteelNavy.Com Message Board ]
Posted by Ralph Wood on July 30, 2026, 17:33:05, in reply to "will the flight 1s & 2s get these upgrades or"
As far as I know, the Flight Is and IIs are too old (and too small. Flight IIAs are only slightly bigger, but that's enough of a margine.) The 2.0 upgrade is for IIAs, and even then, it looks like they are starting with the hull numbers in the 90s. Those before that also appear to be considered too old. In one of the articles linked somewhere in this thread, it says that even some of those won't get the full 2.0 program, and gave DDG-100 USS Kidd as an example. Probably in poor material condition. 
Previous Message
are they to close to end of life to get the upgrades? Previous Message
Zumwalt as designed was an argument that an X and S were both needed. She was to have SPY-3 (X) and SPY-4 (S) active phased arrays. Those two systems were typical examples of defense designed programs, i.e. purpose built, complex and expensive. Zumwalt then tripped Nunn-McCurdy limits, and the resulting required cost reductions caused the Navy to elimate the more expensive of the two radars (SPY-4) and go soley with a software enhanced SPY-3. The Zumwalt was never intended as a primary air defense platform, so could still "perform reasonably" in a limited air defense role without the volume-search S band radar.
Three things killed Zumwalt: 1) A breakthrough in radar cooling allowed the Burke hull to accomodate an active phased array. Until then, such cooling put too much weight too high in the hull. 2) SPY-6 was a more modular and affordable S band than SPY-4, and--by virtue of its modularity--was able to fit in the footprint of the previous SPY-1 system, so being able to install on a Burke hull. 3) An alternate way of doing ballistic missile defense was developed which required "less gear" be aboard a single vessel. That reduction in required gear allowed the Burke hull to do ballistic missile defense. Up until then, a Zumwalt sized hull was required to hold everything needed for the mission. Without these 3 breakthroughs, the Navy was locked in to the Zumwalt program. These three items, happening nearly simultaneously, allowed the Navy to realize it could still build Burkes, and more cheaply.
The original Burkes had the then phenomonal SPY-1 S-band for volume air search, and multiple navigation, fire control and tracker-illuminator X band radars, and was a "leap ahead" for its time.
Radars moved towards active phased arrays. SPY-6 now being available, and able to be used on the Burke hull, was a "no-brainer" SPY-1 replacement. SPQ-9B emerged as a modern phased array X band system that the Burke hull could accomodate. (Realize this hull has hit the limits of its expansion capabilities, which is the driving reason for DDGX.) Joining the two radars now gives the Burkes a modernized/updated X-S band pair. FXR will be an active phased array, making it "fully compatible" with the active phased array SPY-6, and which can still fit on the Burke hull. (SPY-3 can not.)
Yes, a dual band radar system is superior. For the reasons explained, we've taken a rather tortuous path to get to that. Previous Message
Combat Fleets of the World (16th edition, 2013), now also an older book, list SPQ-9B in the chapter "Three-dimensional air search radars" and claims it to be an replacement for TAS/Mk 23.
And actually it was originally mainly on ships not armed with guns, but with Sea Sparrow or NSSM.
I have not seen the official reason why it was added to some Arleigh Burke. It make sense for the older SPY-1 ships, especially if they are tasked with ballistic missile defence which limits their anti-ship missile defence capabilities. But also newer ships and even SPY-6-equipped Flight III have SPQ-9B - I assume based on the realisation that a dual band radar system (X band and S band) is superior to a pure S band radar.
Software can improve a radar and add new functions - but the physical properties of the radar also matter. The usage of X band and S band radars on the newest Arleigh Burke could be an argument that software optimisation alone is not sufficient.
Responses « Index