The Watcher
New Member
Navy Promotes Planned DD(X) Destroyer as Critics Cite Size, Cost
WASHINGTON - The hypothetical enemy never saw it coming.
The U.S. Navy's next generation destroyer, the DD(X), used its stealth technology and long-range guns to devastate enemy missile sites Monday during computer simulations designed to show off its capabilities.
The ship then turned to defeat a submarine, fought off missile and gunboat attacks while working with Marine expeditionary forces and carrier strike groups.
The simulation at the company's Arlington, Va., office was to show the media the capabilities of the DD(X), part of a family of warships that use advanced materials, revolutionary weapons and a radical propulsion system.
The DD(X), which is still being designed by a team led by Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, has passed the first eight of 10 Navy preliminary design reviews, according to company president Philip Dur.
Official results have not been released.
"People on (Capitol) Hill want to understand that the money they spend is going to yield an effective warship," said Dur.
Designers say the DD(X) will be a powerful weapon because it combines the stealth of a submarine with the communications ability of a normal surface ship, and an artillery range the Navy has never known before.
Work on the lead DD(X) ship is scheduled to begin in March 2005.
While the contract has yet to be awarded, Northrop Grumman's Ingalls operation in Pascagoula is the lead design agent for the vessel.
The Pascagoula shipyard builds the Navy's current destroyer.
Critics and boosters agree the DD(X) is the Navy's most revolutionary ship in decades.
Northrop Grumman officials describe it as "a quantum leap in naval warfare."
The destroyer's hull design, utilizing stealth technology, makes the 600-foot-long ship look like a fishing boat to radar. It will face the preliminary review panel next week.
The stealthy hull served the ship well in computer simulations, allowing it to sneak close to shore and strike at targets 100 miles inland with its twin 155 mm guns. However, the estimated $1.2 to $1.4 billion ship has its critics.
"The DD(X) strikes me as too big, too heavy and too comprehensive," said Marcus Corbin, a senior analyst at the Center for Defense Information.
Corbin said a ship the size of DD(X) would present quite a target for hostile fire no matter how stealthy its design. He said he believed a number of smaller ships would be better able to work through enemy fire.
But Dur said the ship's radar signature would make it hard for enemy missiles to target and that, according to computer tests, the destroyer will have a 95 percent chance of defeating a six-missile attack by using countermeasures.
Corbin worried about the validity of computer-only tests.
He also said he believed the DD(X) was the cheapest and most effective way to do the job.
"Taking the gun off this ship and putting it on a hull only gives you a gun with a range of 100 miles," Dur said, explaining that other ships would have to be built to do other DD(X) duties. "Could you field it in multiple platforms? Sure, but at what cost?"
source
WASHINGTON - The hypothetical enemy never saw it coming.
The U.S. Navy's next generation destroyer, the DD(X), used its stealth technology and long-range guns to devastate enemy missile sites Monday during computer simulations designed to show off its capabilities.
The ship then turned to defeat a submarine, fought off missile and gunboat attacks while working with Marine expeditionary forces and carrier strike groups.
The simulation at the company's Arlington, Va., office was to show the media the capabilities of the DD(X), part of a family of warships that use advanced materials, revolutionary weapons and a radical propulsion system.
The DD(X), which is still being designed by a team led by Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, has passed the first eight of 10 Navy preliminary design reviews, according to company president Philip Dur.
Official results have not been released.
"People on (Capitol) Hill want to understand that the money they spend is going to yield an effective warship," said Dur.
Designers say the DD(X) will be a powerful weapon because it combines the stealth of a submarine with the communications ability of a normal surface ship, and an artillery range the Navy has never known before.
Work on the lead DD(X) ship is scheduled to begin in March 2005.
While the contract has yet to be awarded, Northrop Grumman's Ingalls operation in Pascagoula is the lead design agent for the vessel.
The Pascagoula shipyard builds the Navy's current destroyer.
Critics and boosters agree the DD(X) is the Navy's most revolutionary ship in decades.
Northrop Grumman officials describe it as "a quantum leap in naval warfare."
The destroyer's hull design, utilizing stealth technology, makes the 600-foot-long ship look like a fishing boat to radar. It will face the preliminary review panel next week.
The stealthy hull served the ship well in computer simulations, allowing it to sneak close to shore and strike at targets 100 miles inland with its twin 155 mm guns. However, the estimated $1.2 to $1.4 billion ship has its critics.
"The DD(X) strikes me as too big, too heavy and too comprehensive," said Marcus Corbin, a senior analyst at the Center for Defense Information.
Corbin said a ship the size of DD(X) would present quite a target for hostile fire no matter how stealthy its design. He said he believed a number of smaller ships would be better able to work through enemy fire.
But Dur said the ship's radar signature would make it hard for enemy missiles to target and that, according to computer tests, the destroyer will have a 95 percent chance of defeating a six-missile attack by using countermeasures.
Corbin worried about the validity of computer-only tests.
Dur said a bigger ship would give sailors a better chance of surviving an attack.
He also said he believed the DD(X) was the cheapest and most effective way to do the job.
"Taking the gun off this ship and putting it on a hull only gives you a gun with a range of 100 miles," Dur said, explaining that other ships would have to be built to do other DD(X) duties. "Could you field it in multiple platforms? Sure, but at what cost?"
source
