Read the forum code of contact
By: - 8th June 2006 at 08:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The USN budget for FY2007 provides funding for the first two ships to be built concurrently by General Dynamics Bath Iron Works and Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, rather than hold a competition, as was previously anticipated. Initial operating capability is planned for 2013.The number of ships required is planned to be between eight and twelve.
DD(X) replaces the DD 21 Zumwalt program which was for a class of 32 multimission destroyers to replace Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates (FFG 7) and Spruance class destroyers (DD 963) from 2012. Unlike previous classes of destroyer, which were primarily to counter deep water threats, the DD 21's primary mission would be to provide land attack support for ground forces and also to carry out traditional destroyer missions of anti-air, anti-surface and undersea warfare.
In April 2006, the USN announced that the first ship of the class will be designated DDG 1000 Zumwalt.
The DD(X) is planned to have a displacement of around 12,000t, less than the 14,000t or more of the DD-21, with a sustained speed of around 30 knots.
By: - 8th June 2006 at 08:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The DDX will be a highly capable ship for sure, however the costs are putting a question mark against it. There seems to be serious proposals to use the lead vessels as proving platforms for a future destroyer design that will be cheaper to build.
By: - 8th June 2006 at 14:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Two questions.
1. What kind of shape are the VLS Spruances in (if you know)? How much work to put them back into service if they wanted to? Would it even be worth it?
2. I'd read they want to cut back the DDX to a demonstrator only with the idea being to come up with a cheaper design after those 2 units. It seems to me that throwing away all that R&D just so you can incure MORE R&D outlays would actually be more expensive in the end. They did the same thing with Seawolf and now we have the Virginias that are less capable but MORE expensive than the Seawolfs. Do we just have some frighteningly incompetant people at the wheel or do they actually have evidence that supports the 2-ship-go-to-different-design is going to be better in the long run?
By: - 8th June 2006 at 16:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I must admit that I'm of the same opinion, history is full of "cheap" programs to replace those considered too expensive which ultimately end up anything cheap and a lot less capable than hoped for, I fear we may be seeing this scenario play out with the F35 JSF. In a sense the irony is that the DDX is a excellent example of this as the DDX was meant to be a low cost, lower risk replacement for the DD21. Much of the high value part of the DDX is in the sensor and command and control suites, radar image reducing technology and combat systems, which would be the high cost parts of any replacement design so it's hard to see the USN producing a design retaining most of the capability at a significant saving (if any), unless they accept a real reduction in capability I think the DDX is still the design to stick with.
By: - 9th June 2006 at 14:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Much like Seawolf and Virginia then.
Although in Virginia they seemed to have made a lot of cost savings due to use of computer engineering. Something I suppose is already being used in DDX from the beginning. I think somehow the huge costs for the lead units are more caused by the uncertain future (and hence cost of the SPY-3 radar) than by anything else. I suppose that the company wants to get the research of SPY-3 paid back as soon as possible to make sure it gets paid in the end. If they keep reducing the numbers they might end up with a debt for the SPY-3 development... (well not exactly SPY-3 alone, I guess it's like that with the entire electronics suite and ship design, buying two of them would take a huge part of R&D costs in their prices).
Sferring, AFAIK the costs of Virginia ARE lower than Seawolf's. I think they were even at only half the cost or so. If I were them I would have stopped that and just restarted the LA production in an upgraded version. It's not like they have any real capable enemy to be affraid of at the moment. And an Improved Improved LA would still be quite an opponent at a probably MUCH lower price!
By: - 10th June 2006 at 13:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Seawolf was about $2.1 billion. Virginia is about $2.4 billion (down from $2.7 billion) and that's NOT adjusted for inflation. These are build costs and do not include R&D.
By: - 12th June 2006 at 10:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The DD-21 Zumwalt-class Land Attack Destroyer was intended to replace the DD 963 and FFG 7 Classes of destroyer and frigate in today's inventory. The DD 21 System will provide an advanced level of land attack in support of the ground campaign and contribute to naval, joint and combined battlespace dominance in littoral operations.
On 01 November 2001 the Navy announced that it would issue a revised Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Future Surface Combatant Program. Formerly known as DD 21, the program will now be called "DD(X)" to more accurately reflect the program purpose, which is to produce a family of advanced technology surface combatants, not a single ship class. Instead of building the large DD 21 destroyer, the Navy may use the advanced technology on a full range of ships, including a downsized destroyer, an even smaller warship to operate in coastal waters, and a larger cruiser. One of the concerns about the DD-21 was that it was much larger than the current DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. Another concern [reportedly of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz] was that the Navy was investing too much in a ship primarily designed to accommodate the long-range Advanced Gun System. The House Appropriations Committee voted in October 2001 to cut funding for the DD-21 program by 75 percent. The Navy subsequently restructured the program, which was renamed the DD-X. The new "downsized" destroyer is slated to displace 12,000 tons, instead of the 16,000 tons planned for the DD 21.
DD 21 is a multimission destroyer tailored for land attack warfare. DD 21 is required to support ground forces as a primary mission, in addition to performing traditional destroyer missions (i.e., anti-air, anti-surface, and undersea warfare). In that regard, DD 21 represents a departure from past design efforts, which were focused primarily on the deep-water threats of the Cold War era. The DD 21 will be a true fleet destroyer, capable of handling any mission that a Fleet commander might ask, from key wartime missions in land attack and undersea warfare to the equally important presence missions, noncombatant evacuations, escort, and diplomatic missions that have been closely associated with Navy destroyers for almost a century.
DD 21 will be designed with the necessary growth capacity to accommodate the additional missions of CG 21. CG 21 will be a fully capable next generation air dominance cruiser to replace today’s AEGIS Cruisers. This common design, along with an open systems architecture, will facilitate affordable and flexible mission upgrades to ensure this family of ships remains mission capable over its full service life.
DD 21 will be a multi-mission destroyer tailored to maritime dominance and land attack missions. DD 21 will push the envelope in improved joint connectivity, advanced computing systems, reduced signatures (radar cross section, infrared, acoustic, magnetic, and active signature management techniques) and optimal manning.
DD 21 will be an offensive, multi-mission destroyer capable of operating independently or with a Naval, Joint, or combined task force. The ship’s offensive, land attack orientation is being engineered and balanced with traditional multi-mission surface combatant capabilities that will be needed for DD 21 to dominate the maritime battlespace. While tailored for land attack, the ship’s ultimate mission is to fight and win any battle...open ocean or littoral.
With state-of-the-art information technologies, DD 21 will operate seamlessly with other naval, ground, and land-based air forces, and will be in accordance with the Navy's evolving "Network-Centric Warfare" concept of operations and Information Technology for the 21st Century architecture. The DD 21 emphasis on "sensor-to-shooter" connectivity will provide a naval or Joint Task Force commander with the multi-mission flexibility to destroy a wide variety of land targets while simultaneously countering maritime threats.
Like today's Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers, DD 21 will be a multi-mission ship, capable of providing forward presence and deterrence, and operating as a vital part of naval, joint and combined maritime forces to gain battlespace dominance in littoral operations. But unlike today's destroyers, DD 21's primary mission will be land attack support for ground forces. Armed with 5-inch/62 extended range guided munitions and 155mm Howitzers, the ship will provide naval gunfire support up to 100 miles inland. A land attack missile system will extend support between 100 and 200 miles. Tactical Tomahawk missiles will be able to reach targets from 200 to 1,600 nautical miles.
DD 21 will have the most advanced undersea warfare combat systems ever installed on a surface combatant. The ship's hangar will house attack helicopters as well as a system of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). In concert with other ships, DD 21 will contribute surveillance and force to establish and maintain local air superiority.
The DD 21 program emphasizes more than just improved offensive and defensive capabilities. Because DD 21's design will incorporate only the most advanced systems and materials on the market today, ships of the class can remain battle-ready with minimal maintenance and greatly reduced manpower. Design characteristics such as submarine-like survivability and a significantly reduced radar signature, achieved through a fully integrated topside design, will significantly expand the mission of the surface combatant.
As with previous destroyer designs, DD 21 will be focused on the key mission areas facing the nation and the Navy during its design phase. The Navy believes it needs a destroyer that is capable of exceptional performance in the littoral regions of the world and one that can provide significant support to forces ashore. As a result, DD 21 must excel in mission areas that include land attack and maritime dominance. DD 21 will provide an advanced level of land attack in support of the ground campaign, while contributing to naval, joint, and combined battlespace dominance in littoral operations. Given the large inventory of upgraded CG 47 and new DDG 51 Class ships that will be in the fleet by the time the first few DD 21 class ships begin to join the fleet after 2008, a robust self defense capability in air defense will be sufficient for this ship.
The DD 21 ships must possess the operational flexibility to meet the multimission forward presence and war-fighting requirements of the littoral environment and employ self defense against the threats documented in the 21st Century Surface Combatant Program System Threat Assessment Report. The DD 21 ships must also be capable of taking advantage of and maintaining the benefits of the military revolution stimulated by the rapid advances in information and information related technologies and exploit them through automation and system architectures capable of disseminating information to widely dispersed and dissimilar units to achieve an overall dominant maneuver concept of operations, as outlined in Joint Vision 2010 and concepts for future joint operations.
Specifications
Displacement 16,000 12,000 tons
Builder Bath and Ingalls
Power Plant Integrated Power System (IPS)
Length TBD feet [Panama Canal transit capability]
Beam TBD feet [Panama Canal transit capability]
Draft no more than 28 feet
Armament 2 - 155mm Advanced Gun System
117-128 VLS cells
[256 VLS cells without AGS]
Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile
Tactical Tomahawk Block IV
Advanced Land Attack Missile
Systems Multi-Function Radar (MFR)
Volume Search Radar (VSR)
Naval Surface Fire Support Weapon Control System (NWCS)
Speed TBD knots ( mph)
Crew Threshold: 150
Objective: 95
[vice traditional = 440]
Aircraft 2 SH-60 LAMPS helicopters
Costs $750 million procurement cost objective (for the fifth ship in each shipyard in FY 1996 dollars)
$2,700 (FY 1996) per hour underway operation and support (O&S) cost objective, excluding fleet modernization activities and sustaining engineering elements [about one-third the O&S cost of a conventional surface combatant].
Name Number Builder Homeport Ordered Comm Decomm
DD-21 Bath/Ingalls 2004 2011 2051
DD-22 Bath/Ingalls 2006 2012 2052
DD-23 Ingalls 2006 2012 2052
DD-24 Bath 2006 2012 2052
DD-25 Ingalls 2007 2013 2053
DD-26 Bath 2007 2013 2053
DD-27 Ingalls 2007 2013 2053
DD-28 Bath 2008 2014 2054
DD-29 Ingalls 2008 2014 2054
DD-30 Bath 2008 2014 2054
DD-31 Ingalls 2009 2015 2055
DD-32 Bath 2009 2015 2055
DD-33 Ingalls 2009 2015 2055
DD-34 Bath 2010 2016 2056
DD-35 Ingalls 2010 2016 2056
DD-36 Bath 2010 2016 2056
DD-37 Ingalls 2011 2017 2057
DD-38 Bath 2011 2017 2057
DD-39 Ingalls 2011 2017 2057
DD-40 Bath 2012 2018 2058
DD-41 Ingalls 2012 2018 2058
DD-42 Bath 2012 2018 2058
DD-43 Ingalls 2013 2019 2059
DD-44 Bath 2013 2019 2059
DD-45 Ingalls 2013 2019 2059
DD-46 Bath 2014 2020 2060
DD-47 Ingalls 2014 2020 2060
DD-48 Bath 2014 2020 2060
DD-49 Ingalls 2015 2021 2061
DD-50 Bath 2015 2021 2061
DD-51 Ingalls 2015 2021 2061
DD-52 Bath 2016 2022 2062
DD-53 Ingalls 2016 2022 2062
greetings gunner5"
By: - 12th June 2006 at 13:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That was the original program (sorry, the revised DDX program following the withdrawal of original DD21 funding) but the numbers now talked about are 7-12, with more and more people using the lower number, and there is a serious move to suggest the first two of the class are built as technology proving platforms for a more economical design to replace the whole DDX project.
By: - 12th June 2006 at 13:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks gunner5'' for that piece.
So the DD-21 design has changed to a more conventional layout , But a crew of mere 95 (objective) and 30 % LLC is a remarkable achievement.
By: - 12th June 2006 at 15:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This will provide excellent quick response fires support for USMC. Looks like a useful design in this pork of pork world.
Why is my picture different from the one above? Which design is it supposed to be?
By: - 12th June 2006 at 15:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It is remarkable. However the goal of the ultra-small crew seems inappropriate for a combat vessel that is intended to go in harms way and be a risk of damage.
It takes a goodly number of individuals to fight fires and deal with damage control in a platform as large as this. Small crews may be sufficient for steaming from point A to B but when the ship suffers damage or casualtities more personnel will be needed. Just because many of the damage control functions are automated can reduce the need for people. Automated systems can be damaged and their ability to replace crew lost -then what.
Even in day to day operations, ship equipment suffers casualities and requires on-site repairs. It may be that every thing is modular with replacement modules in stock but nothing is predicable except chaos. You need to plan for the worst case senario.
I hope that these ships live up to their reputation. If they suffer damage like the USS Cole or Stark I hope their small crews in remote locations can save the ship.
By: - 12th June 2006 at 16:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This will provide excellent quick response fires support for USMC. Looks like a useful design in this pork of pork world.Why is my picture different from the one above? Which design is it supposed to be?
Your picture is the correct design. That other one is ancient history.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/dd-x-pics.htm
By: - 12th June 2006 at 17:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
One of the many interesting things about this vessel is the intention to fit a 57mm bofors guns as CIWS!!! Note the bulge on the corner of the hanger.
By: - 12th June 2006 at 17:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
why does it need to be 12000tons, cant they reduce the number of pvls cells and other toys and do a virginia on it, bringing it down to a more economical 7500tons ?
maybe explore a smaller gun or a turret with two guns eh? the gun has 100 mile range which is well within range of any next-gen ASM fired from the shore, so its not as if reducing the guns range to 70km with a smaller piece will seriously threaten the concept.
By: - 12th June 2006 at 17:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
One of the many interesting things about this vessel is the intention to fit a 57mm bofors guns as CIWS!!! Note the bulge on the corner of the hanger.
I think they're just close in guns, not CIWS. They'll be using ESSM for that.
By: - 12th June 2006 at 18:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
why does it need to be 12000tons, cant they reduce the number of pvls cells and other toys and do a virginia on it, bringing it down to a more economical 7500tons ? .
Even a Burke significantly exceeds 7500 tons. And reduce the number of cells? It's only got 80 as it is. A Burke has 96 and a Ticonderoga 128 (assuming they removed the cranes). Why would you want to reduce your capability even further? If anything they're under armed. When you consider each cell could carry one of the following:
SM-2
SM-3
4 ESSM
Tomahawk
VL-ASROC
and in the future possibly:
A hypersonic land/ship attack missile
PAC-3 (prob. 4 to a cell)
THAAD
Full caliber Standard
New Larger SAM/ABM (the PLS cells are quite a bit bigger than the current cells)
then you need a lot of cells.
And "do a Virginia on it"? You mean make it smaller, more expensive, and less capable? I'd hope they'd have learned their lesson.
maybe explore a smaller gun or a turret with two guns eh? the gun has 100 mile range which is well within range of any next-gen ASM fired from the shore, so its not as if reducing the guns range to 70km with a smaller piece will seriously threaten the concept.
Cutting the range in HALF would reduce the distance inland you can hit.
If anything they ought to add a pair of Goalkeepers (repackaged to reduce RCS and with a surface mode too) and a pair of 21-cell RAM launchers.
On second thought though it could be sparse because they intend to equip it with DEW when they become available. That's also part of the reason for the size: lots of power and lots of fuel.
By: - 12th June 2006 at 18:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
you have to hand it to the Americans when it comes to foresight and long term planning.... they have the last vessel planned to be decomed in 2068!!!
By: - 12th June 2006 at 22:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If anything they ought to add a pair of Goalkeepers (repackaged to reduce RCS and with a surface mode too) and a pair of 21-cell RAM launchers.
A better option would be to get the off the shelf and probably more capable 35mm Millenium Ahead turrets, but the plan seems to be that these ships and those around them will be able to stop a AShM before it gets to that stage, the 57mm are intended as CIWS but with greater reach and the ability to stop small boats faster and with greater ease.
Is the plan still to use the new larger VLS cells? If so this is weird as frankly they are a system without any missiles and the Mk-41 would offer greater payload and fleet commonality. The DDX is increasingly looking like a ship for a ships sake. All it will realy have over the existing vessels in the fleet is its main guns. I realy feel that the USN is missing an oppotunity here, the technology has been developed for them to develop a very powerful multi-role DDG to follow on from the AB, instead they made it to expensive by trying to make everything 22nd century rather than 21st, so had to turn it into what is in effect a glorified Monitor (when they already have the LCS programme) in order to cut the costs back. Personally I just hope that theylearn their lesson for the next class.
By: - 13th June 2006 at 00:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A better option would be to get the off the shelf and probably more capable 35mm Millenium Ahead turrets, but the plan seems to be that these ships and those around them will be able to stop a AShM before it gets to that stage, the 57mm are intended as CIWS but with greater reach and the ability to stop small boats faster and with greater ease.Is the plan still to use the new larger VLS cells? If so this is weird as frankly they are a system without any missiles and the Mk-41 would offer greater payload and fleet commonality. The DDX is increasingly looking like a ship for a ships sake. All it will realy have over the existing vessels in the fleet is its main guns. I realy feel that the USN is missing an oppotunity here, the technology has been developed for them to develop a very powerful multi-role DDG to follow on from the AB, instead they made it to expensive by trying to make everything 22nd century rather than 21st, so had to turn it into what is in effect a glorified Monitor (when they already have the LCS programme) in order to cut the costs back. Personally I just hope that theylearn their lesson for the next class.
The current Mk41 VLS is maxed out. You can't fit bigger than a Tomahawk. A full caliber Standard would give you more performance out of a SAM but then you're stuck there too. Keep in mind the only missile that uses the full cell size (even today) is the Tomahawk. But as they say "better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it". Also the cell groups themselves have been designed to be more survivable. From what I've read they want the bigger cells because come CG-21 they'll be able to put a pretty high performance SAM/ABM in there. Something else that occurred to me was what they did with Spruance. At the beginning of the program you had a pretty big ship with 2 5" guns, an 8 cell Sea Sparrow launcher and an Asroc launcher. Keep in mind these things were bigger and heavier than a "double end" Leahy. But in the end they had 61 VLS cells, 8 Harpoons, and 2 Phalanx added to the list. DDX is designed to be able to take advantage of railgun/electromagnetic guns and directed energy weapons when they come available.
By: - 13th June 2006 at 05:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
my thought was the marine gunfire support be given from a smaller ship that lacks the huge C3I component and large# of P-VLS cells (would carry mainly land attack Thawk and a few ESSM). the ATBM/AAW version would skip the siege gun , have the full featured SPY3, ATBM SAMs and conventional SM2 also in a full array of VLS.
i.e. a bifurcation into the old DD21 and CG21 concept :D
the puppy above looks like swiss army knife with 21 blades. the more "austere" marine version would be built in bigger numbers and cost less, the bigstick CG21 would be fewer units and accompany future carriers and hang around off "countries with issues" like iran, pakistan and Noko :diablo:
Posts: 847
By: Turbinia - 8th June 2006 at 07:49
What is the latest on how many DDX destroyers will be built for the USN? The number seems to have been in freefall from a full class to a class of 7, now the House is talking about 2 to be built as technology demonstrators for a future, more economical design. The DDX is high capability with a lot of new technology and that entails high risk/cost, it promises to be a superb ship, but if it is unaffordable then the question has to be asked what plans the USN has to maintain numbers? The Arleigh Burke's are still superb ships, maybe updates to that design using technology intended for the DDX?