It seems as though the DD(X) has been reduced to a technology demonstrater. I understand the reason for this is due to its extremely high cost. There are also unconfirmed rumors that the CG(X) has been completely cancelled. I don't know what the plans of the navy are but they still will need replacements for the Ticonderoga cruisers, OHP frigates, and some of the older Arleigh Burke destroyers. The navy wanted a too much from the DD(X) and this showed up in its $3.2 billion price tag. One of the requirement included dominence of littoral waters. It seems as though the navy wanted too much too fast. Going from the Burke to DD(X) is like going from the wright flyer to an F-86. DD(X) was supposed to have a new hull shape, new radar system, new command and control system, totally new gun system, and a completely new propulsion system. First off there is no need for the littoral capability as that is being covered by the LCS. One of the great features of DD(X) was to be able to provide the Marines with fire support. I believe that there needs to be a stealthy platform fitted with the advanced gun system that can serve as off-shore fire support and be equipped with the Aegis system. Its main mission purpose should be similar to that of the Burke. Nonetheless it should be a deep water ship designed to be part of a carrier battlegroup or an amphibious assault force. Either way the navy cannot have a do-it-all ship. Its too expensive. In regards to CG(X) again if capabilites could be reduced and have the ships be able to fulfill only a few of the necessary missions for maintaining a bluewater navy rather then fulfilling all of them these ships will be more affordable and still be able to maintain sea dominence.
DD(X) cancellation
- Thread starter fylr71
- Start date
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Not sure about all that mate, this announcement was made just yesterday:
DRS to Provide Integrated Power Systems Supporting U.S. Navy's New DDG-1000 Destroyers
DRS Technologies to design and produce up to shipsets of Integrated Fight Through Power (IFTP) systems for the U.S. Navy's next-generation DDG-1000 destroyers, formerly known as DD(X).
Read More...
DRS to Provide Integrated Power Systems Supporting U.S. Navy's New DDG-1000 Destroyers
DRS Technologies to design and produce up to shipsets of Integrated Fight Through Power (IFTP) systems for the U.S. Navy's next-generation DDG-1000 destroyers, formerly known as DD(X).
Read More...
Last edited by a moderator:
contedicavour
New Member
Normally 7 Zumwalts/DD(x) should be built, 182-metre monsters with 96 VLS cells or may be more...
I agree that I don't get the difference in terms of potential versus the Burke Flight IIA. Why spend a lot to develop an entirely new class when there are 50 Burke in service and 12 building, besides the 22 VLS Ticonderogas...
Priority shuold be to accelerate LCS construction in order to replace the 21 remaining OHPs, reduced to gun frigates...
Which brings me to a question : when will a choice be made betweent the Freedom and Independence designs ? 2 are being built of each, but what about the follow-ons ?
cheers
I agree that I don't get the difference in terms of potential versus the Burke Flight IIA. Why spend a lot to develop an entirely new class when there are 50 Burke in service and 12 building, besides the 22 VLS Ticonderogas...
Priority shuold be to accelerate LCS construction in order to replace the 21 remaining OHPs, reduced to gun frigates...
Which brings me to a question : when will a choice be made betweent the Freedom and Independence designs ? 2 are being built of each, but what about the follow-ons ?
cheers
Last I saw the DD(X) has 80 vls tubes positioned in peripheral launch tubes on the sides and 2 155mm guns.contedicavour said:
Has that been finalised.
Yes, that is the last I heard. On the image at the top of this web page, you'll see three of the four VLS launchers. The politics of the DDG-1000 is red hot between Maine and Mississippi. Keep in mind while the House usually sets the budget, the Senate usually sets policy.
Oh, I wish America had a parliament instead of a Congress! Instead of yea and nay votes on every bill, wouldn't it be nice to have a cabinet decide these issues. But, oh well, America tends to meddle through.
http://ddg1k.com/DDG/
Oh, I wish America had a parliament instead of a Congress! Instead of yea and nay votes on every bill, wouldn't it be nice to have a cabinet decide these issues. But, oh well, America tends to meddle through.
http://ddg1k.com/DDG/
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #7
I know the information about the DD(X) is unclear as I have heard different things from different sources. My point is that even if 7 DD(X) are built, it is no where near the numbers necessary for replacing the OHP, Ticonderogas, and eventually older Burkes. The navy needs something besides the LCS on the drawing board.
contedicavour
New Member
There are still 12 Burke Flight IIA building, and in case of need more could be added to replace older Burke or the Ticonderogas.fylr71 said:
IMHO priority is to replace the OHPs with LCS, because the OHPs have been already mostly deleted or sent into NRF, and because even those that remain have been stripped of all that matters (Mk13 with SM1 and Harpoon).
I don't see what the Zumwalts bring more than the Burkes, except the heavy caliber artillery. But even that could be retrofitted to the Burkes, or installed on a new Flight III stretched Burke.
cheers
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #9
What DD(X) brings that Burke doesn't is a high level of stealth. Granted Burke is designed with stealth in mind and has some stealthy features but it is in no way as stealthy as DD(X). If the Marines are hitting the beaches and are recieving fire support from DD(X) 50 miles out it would be very hard for the enemy to pick it up on radar in order to fire radar guided missiles. However I don't see why this capability makes it necessary to spend $3.2 billion compared to $1.05 billion for the Burke.contedicavour said:
fylr71 said:
Good point that highlights why the DD(X) in this environment is overkill. $3 billion to provide a fire support package that is ‘less’ difficult to take out than a $1 billion solution with similar land attack capability seems a false economy. The USN has no real competition on the seas in capability or numbers so even a hi-lo Destroyer mix where the AB is ‘lo’ (and let’s be honest that’s hardly the case) the USN is the envy of many.
Does provision of 2 x 155mm guns really require a $3bn platform?
contedicavour
New Member
Fully agree with you folks, the Zumwalts at 3bn USD each (with 80 VLS vs 90 for Burke, I just checked) are an embarassing proposal that all (but the Congressmen in charge of the districits that would build the ships) should refuse.mark22w said:Good point that highlights why the DD(X) in this environment is overkill. $3 billion to provide a fire support package that is ‘less’ difficult to take out than a $1 billion solution with similar land attack capability seems a false economy. The USN has no real competition on the seas in capability or numbers so even a hi-lo Destroyer mix where the AB is ‘lo’ (and let’s be honest that’s hardly the case) the USN is the envy of many.
Does provision of 2 x 155mm guns really require a $3bn platform?
And no, 155mm guns don't explain the difference in price tag vs Burkes. In Italy we have a programme for 127mm guided munitions with a range 70km+ and the cost so far is still reasonable enough to integrate the gun & the guided ammo aboard our FFGs. If we can afford it with our minuscule defence budget ....
cheers
enigmaticuk
New Member
Nothing has been mentioned about the key to the revolution that the ddx represents, which is its intgrated power supply. Which will allow it to pulse and redirect power as required. This will be essential when the time comes to integrate directed energy such as a THEL for missile defense or microwave for shore area denial. Yes it is an expensive platfrom but it will keep our forces many steps ahead of rivals. You must always inovate and move forward whatever the cost to maintian the upper hand.
contedicavour
New Member
The weapons systems you are mentioning are the famous electro-magnetic rail guns ? The current power supply on the Burkes wouldn't be enough to recharge them ?enigmaticuk said:
Could you please elaborate because what you are hinting at is very interesting.
cheers
THEL is Tactical High Energy Laser. It's a ground-based system that's shown some promise in shooting down tactical ballistic missiles. Due to short range, space, weight, and electricity requirements; it's not a realistic shipboard weapon and nobody has proposed it as such.contedicavour said:
The gun on the DD(X) is the 155mm AGS, which fires a seperated-charge, GPS guided RAP round up to about 90NM. It's frought with problems; each individual shell costs more than a Maverick missile, and because of the DD(X)'s small crew it would take almost a whole day for an alongside ship to UNREP the magazines, a pretty unrealistic scenario. Additionally, existing 5" rounds would not be adaptable to the AGS's chamber, leaving the USN with both a short-term ammo shortage and a long-term expense of disposing of environmentally-challenged obsolete ammo.
I don't know of any active rail gun program. I believe the closest thing to that is a electromagnetic catapult proposed for USS George HW Bush; I'm not sure if they went ahead with it or are using a standard Nimitz catapult.
The new US Chief of Naval Operations is considering a new naval stragedy. Currently, in the war against terroism, the navy is coming in third among the US services. Naval shipbuilding budgets have been cut to fund the other services operations and acquisition budgets. Its becoming obvious that America cannot afford the current naval stragedy. Instead of purchasing $3 billion destroyers, America needs more less costly smaller warships, possibly more multi-roled vessels.
Read about it at this website: http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=16527
Here are two of the most illuminating paragraphs.
It is not surprising therefore that the USN’s chief of naval operations, Admiral Michael Mullen, has recently announced a plan to develop a “maritime strategy for the 21st century.” He has foreshadowed that this will widen the Navy’s concept of sea power beyond its war-fighting role to include securing international shipping against piracy and maritime terrorism and using warships to deliver humanitarian aid. While previous maritime strategies have been based on unilateral sea control, the new strategy will have a strong cooperative flavor, recognizing the impact of globalization and common interests in safety and security upon the world’s oceans.
Along with the other services, winning the global war on terrorism has become the USN’s main priority, while concurrently defending the homeland against attack. However, the USN has been losing out recently in the competition for resources between the Services, and it appears that Sea Power 21 is no longer adequate justification for proposed new naval capabilities.
The Zumwalt class of destroyers is misnamed. Zumwalt was a tin can sailor who appreciated the smaller warships, such as the Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates, and the the Sea Control small carriers. His body is probably turning over in his casket with the huge, expensive Zumwalt class being named after him. I am sure he would rather have his named attached to the new LCS class of ship. He argued against the ever larger, more expensive ships during his day.
Read about it at this website: http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=16527
Here are two of the most illuminating paragraphs.
It is not surprising therefore that the USN’s chief of naval operations, Admiral Michael Mullen, has recently announced a plan to develop a “maritime strategy for the 21st century.” He has foreshadowed that this will widen the Navy’s concept of sea power beyond its war-fighting role to include securing international shipping against piracy and maritime terrorism and using warships to deliver humanitarian aid. While previous maritime strategies have been based on unilateral sea control, the new strategy will have a strong cooperative flavor, recognizing the impact of globalization and common interests in safety and security upon the world’s oceans.
Along with the other services, winning the global war on terrorism has become the USN’s main priority, while concurrently defending the homeland against attack. However, the USN has been losing out recently in the competition for resources between the Services, and it appears that Sea Power 21 is no longer adequate justification for proposed new naval capabilities.
The Zumwalt class of destroyers is misnamed. Zumwalt was a tin can sailor who appreciated the smaller warships, such as the Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates, and the the Sea Control small carriers. His body is probably turning over in his casket with the huge, expensive Zumwalt class being named after him. I am sure he would rather have his named attached to the new LCS class of ship. He argued against the ever larger, more expensive ships during his day.
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #16
There's no doubt that there is still a place in the navy for the a few "big ships". These being aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships. However I agree that the other ships are getting much too big. I think the wave of the future will be stealthy, fast, quiet, small (under 3,000 tons), and be able to operate in littoral waters (LCS, Visby, Skjold, Chinese 022, Russians have some projects underway). However there will still need to be a larger multirole aegis type ship. I believe that if the DD(X) proves too expensive. This class of ship may be similar of the British Type 45.
enigmaticuk
New Member
The progression of the most advanced weapons systems possible is imperative for our nations armed forces. Navy ships/subs integrate the most complex sensors, weapons and systems we have available. Striving to advance the development of the DD-1000 platform has benefits well beyond DDx itself. The new capabilites gained and the lessons learned will of course be spiraled by the defense contractors to all of their naval products.
Much of the lethality of ships in the futre will be from the potential of their electrical systems. THEL's are not only ground platform as another writer has stated but are already being employed in the ABL, however they are chemical lasers which are limited by the chemical ordanance they require and could be restrictive for a deployed ship. However solid state lasers will become more mature as the century unfolds and if we are not well advanced with a design stratagey which ddx represents for naval architecture then we will not be able to leverage these new directed energy weapons capabilites into our naval ships.
Many are arguing that the money spent on ddx is a waste and could be better spent elsewhere, i fail to see how pushing our industries to refine and improve their products to the highest levels possible could be a waste. Im not saying the price tag is not inflated and perhaps should be scrutinised more publically but what the program represents for industry and our military is invaluable.
Much of the lethality of ships in the futre will be from the potential of their electrical systems. THEL's are not only ground platform as another writer has stated but are already being employed in the ABL, however they are chemical lasers which are limited by the chemical ordanance they require and could be restrictive for a deployed ship. However solid state lasers will become more mature as the century unfolds and if we are not well advanced with a design stratagey which ddx represents for naval architecture then we will not be able to leverage these new directed energy weapons capabilites into our naval ships.
Many are arguing that the money spent on ddx is a waste and could be better spent elsewhere, i fail to see how pushing our industries to refine and improve their products to the highest levels possible could be a waste. Im not saying the price tag is not inflated and perhaps should be scrutinised more publically but what the program represents for industry and our military is invaluable.
contedicavour
New Member
Thanks for the information ! So, if I understand correctly, one of the purposes of the Zumwalt DDGs would be to find a way to operate high energy lasers against ballistic missiles (and potentially ground targets ?).Jtimes2 said:
Regarding guided ammunition shot from onboard artillery, Italy and the Netherlands have a programme called Vulcano/Strales that is delivering guided ammo from 76/62mm super rapid guns and 127/54mm guns, GPS guided with possibility to modify course in mid-flight. Range is for the moment at 70km but should reach 90km. For the moment I haven't heard of sky high cost premiums vs traditional gun/ammo on FFGs and DDGs.
cheers
contedicavour
New Member
enigmaticuk said:
What I have trouble understanding is to what extent do we need a new costly and oversized platform in order to installe laser weaponry aboard. If I understand correctly we're still some time away from operational high energy lasers, so how can we be sure they wouldn't fit on a Burke platform (flight IIA or even a stretched "flight III") ?
The 155mm guns can be fitted instead of the 127mm ones, there's enough space for a larger ammunition magazine underneath.
cheers