GlobalMilitary.net Open-source military intelligence Updated daily

Arleigh Burke vs Ticonderoga

Arleigh Burke vs Ticonderoga at a glance — displacement 9,900 vs 9,800 tons, length 155 vs 173 m, speed 31 vs 32 knots, crew 323 vs 330.

Specifications
Arleigh Burke Ticonderoga
Origin 🇺🇸 United States 🇺🇸 United States
Category Destroyer Cruiser
Type Guided-missile destroyer Guided-missile cruiser
Manufacturer Ingalls Shipbuilding Ingalls Shipbuilding
Year introduced 1991 1983
Number built 78 units 27 units
Estimated unit price $2,200 million $1,000 million
Displacement 9,900 tons 9,800 tons
Maximum speed 31.0 knots 32.0 knots
Range 4,400 nm at 20 knots 6,000 nm at 20 knots
Length 155.3 m 173.0 m
Beam 20.0 m 16.8 m
Crew 323 330
Performance Radar Chart
Armament & Systems
Arleigh Burke Ticonderoga
Armament
  • 1 × 127 mm/54 Mk 45 Mod 1/2 or 1 × 127 mm/62 Mk 45 Mod 4 lightweight gun
  • 1 or 2 × 20 mm Phalanx CIWS
  • 1 × SeaRAM (on select ships)
  • 2 × 25 mm M242 Bushmaster equipped Mk 38 machine gun systems
  • 4 × 12.7 mm M2 Browning heavy machine guns
  • 2 × Mk 141 Harpoon anti-ship missile launchers (Flights I & II only)
  • 4 × Naval Strike Missile (DDG-62)
  • 90 or 96 cell Mk 41 vertical launching system (BGM-109 Tomahawk, RIM-161 SM-3, RIM-174 SM-6, RIM-156 SM-2ER Blk. IV, RIM-66 SM-2MR, RIM-162 ESSM, RUM-139 vertical launch ASROC)
  • 2 × Mark 32 triple torpedo tubes (Mark 46, Mark 50, or Mark 54 lightweight torpedoes)
  • 1 × Optical Dazzling Interdictor, Navy (on select ships)
  • 1 × HELIOS laser (DDG-88)
  • 2 × Mk 41 vertical launch systems (122 cells)
  • 2 × Mk 26 missile launchers (68 x RIM-66 SM-2, 20 x RUR-5 ASROC)
  • 8 × RGM-84 Harpoon missiles
  • 2 × 5 in (127 mm) Mark 45 lightweight gun
  • 2 × Mk 38 25 mm Machine Gun Systems
  • 2–4 × .50 in (12.7 mm) cal. machine gun
  • 2 × Phalanx CIWS
  • 2 × Mk 32 12.75 in (324 mm) triple torpedo tubes
Propulsion 4 × General Electric LM2500 gas turbines each generating 26,250 bhp (19,570 kW); coupled to two shafts, each driving a five-bladed reversible controllable-pitch propeller; Total output: 105,000 bhp (78,000 kW) 4 × General Electric LM2500 gas turbine engines, 2 × controllable-reversible pitch propellers, 2 × rudders

Detailed Comparison

The U.S. Navy’s surface fleet architecture relies on two Aegis-equipped combatants. The Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser and the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer share fundamental combat systems and propulsion architectures, but diverge sharply in hull design, modernization capacity, and long-term fleet viability.

Development and Design

Authorized in 1978, the Ticonderoga class adapted the existing Spruance-class destroyer hull to carry the Aegis Combat System. This approach required an aluminum superstructure, which later suffered from micro-cracking and top-weight issues as new systems were integrated over decades. The Arleigh Burke class, entering service in 1991, was designed specifically for Aegis. It utilizes an all-steel hull and superstructure with Kevlar splinter protection over critical spaces. The Burke’s wider waterplane area and flared bow correct the high center of gravity inherent in the Ticonderoga design. While the Ticonderoga class included extra command spaces to function as the Air Defense Commander for Carrier Strike Groups, the Arleigh Burke design prioritized physical survivability and production scale, resulting in 78 active U.S. units and foreign derivatives in Japan and South Korea.

Weapons and Sensors

Both classes center on the Mk 41 Vertical Launching System (VLS), but differ in capacity and secondary batteries:

  • The Ticonderoga carries 122 VLS cells and two 127mm guns.
  • The Arleigh Burke carries 90 (Flights I/II) or 96 (Flights IIA/III) VLS cells and a single 127mm gun.

While the cruiser holds a 26-cell numerical advantage, sensor modernization dictates current combat capability. The aging Ticonderoga fleet relies on the legacy passive AN/SPY-1 radar. Because the Arleigh Burke hull possessed the structural and electrical margins for upgrades, Flight III Burkes integrate the active electronically scanned array AN/SPY-6(V)1 radar, providing greater detection range and target discrimination against ballistic missiles.

Propulsion and Performance

Both vessels are powered by four General Electric LM2500 gas turbines generating over 100,000 shaft horsepower. Top speeds for both exceed 31 knots. The Ticonderoga possesses a longer unrefueled range at 6,000 nautical miles compared to the Burke’s 4,400 nautical miles at 20 knots. However, the Arleigh Burke class integrated radar cross-section reduction from its inception, utilizing angled bulkheads and a raked mast to decrease its radar signature.

Deployment and Combat Record

Both classes executed land-attack missions using Tomahawk missiles during conflicts in Iraq in 1996, 1998, and 2003. The Ticonderoga class historically operated as the primary anti-air warfare coordinator for carrier strike groups, and USS Lake Erie executed the 2008 intercept of a disabled U.S. satellite. The Arleigh Burke class currently sustains high-tempo ballistic missile defense deployments. Between 2023 and 2024, Burke-class destroyers in the Red Sea intercepted dozens of anti-ship ballistic missiles and drones, recording the first combat engagements using the SM-3 interceptor.

Conclusion

The Arleigh Burke class holds the definitive edge in modern naval surface warfare. While the Ticonderoga class provides 27 percent more VLS capacity and dedicated air warfare command facilities, its Spruance-derived hull reached its weight and power generation limits a decade ago. The Arleigh Burke’s all-steel construction provides superior kinetic survivability, and its structural growth margins allowed the integration of the SPY-6 radar on Flight III ships. In a peer conflict, the improved sensor fidelity and damage resistance of a Flight III Burke outweigh the 26 extra missile cells of a structurally exhausted Ticonderoga.

Change comparison vs

Frequently Asked Questions

Which has greater displacement, the Arleigh Burke-class or Ticonderoga-class?
The Arleigh Burke-class has greater displacement at 9,900 tons compared to the Ticonderoga-class's 9,800 tons.
Which is faster, the Arleigh Burke-class or Ticonderoga-class?
The Ticonderoga-class is faster with a maximum speed of 32 knots compared to the Arleigh Burke-class's 31 knots.
Which has longer range, the Arleigh Burke-class or Ticonderoga-class?
The Ticonderoga-class has a longer range at 6,000 nautical miles compared to the Arleigh Burke-class's 4,400 nautical miles.
Which is longer, the Arleigh Burke-class or Ticonderoga-class?
The Ticonderoga-class is longer at 173.0 meters compared to the Arleigh Burke-class's 155.3 meters.
How many crew members do the Arleigh Burke-class and Ticonderoga-class have?
The Ticonderoga-class has a larger crew complement of 330 compared to the Arleigh Burke-class's 323 crew members.
Which is more expensive, the Arleigh Burke-class or Ticonderoga-class?
The Arleigh Burke-class is more expensive at approximately $2.2 billion per unit compared to the Ticonderoga-class at $1 billion.
Which has been built in greater numbers, the Arleigh Burke-class or Ticonderoga-class?
The Arleigh Burke-class has been built in greater numbers with 78 vessels compared to 27 vessels of the Ticonderoga-class.