DDX

For land attack I would like to see one of the ships in a formation without any helos and just have Army MLRS trucks on the aft deck. :dev2: 😀

At one time LM proposed using Guided MLRS rockets at four per VLS cell. Don’t recall what they called it but it was listed on their missiles and munitions site for some time.

For land attack I would like to see one of the ships in a formation without any helos and just have Army MLRS trucks on the aft deck. :dev2: 😀

DD(X) website http://www.ddxnationalteam.com/

Looks like they are getting into similar funding problems as the RN. They really will have to re-consider how many Carrier battle groups they can operate, as each one has a very long and expensive support tail.

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.

There is no missile on the horizon for the USN which will need a silo bigger than the Mk-41, virtually all, if not all the plans to multipack missiles into these new cells have been abandoned so all they are doing is taking up space that could be used by more Mk-41. The only thing that will make any real difference to the survivability of the new cells is where they are positioned on the ship, they will be spread around the outside of the ship around the hull (see the pictures posted above) thus meaning that they are more spread out so you wont loose half the VLS loadout to a single hit. This could be done easily with the existing Mk-41. All the USN is doing is spending money, that they dont have, on things that they realy dont need.

im sorry to say that the CG[X] is no more its dead acroding to wikapidia
in 2006 Congress massively cut the DD(X) program, with only two ships of the Zumwalt class still planned.
it means only two have congress funding but it still many be revied.

but ording to wikapidea it has been cancesseled [sorry about the spelling ]

The entire USN is in big trouble from a funding point of view. The Congressional Budget Office recently released report saying that the plan for a 313 ship navy is all but impossoble without massive spending increases, it projects that in 2030 the US will have just 205 ships including only seven aircraft carriers 35 LCS and 44 submarines.

im sorry to say that the CG[X] is no more its dead acroding to wikapidia
in 2006 Congress massively cut the DD(X) program, with only two ships of the Zumwalt class still planned.
it means only two have congress funding but it still many be revied.

but ording to wikapidea it has been cancesseled [sorry about the spelling ]

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 😀

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:

The thing is they really can’t afford specialist ships anymore. They pretty much are all multirole though without a decent antiship missile you really couldn’t consider any US surface unit a ship-killer. (I suppose if they thought they needed one real bad they’d have just put Fasthawk into production). Be that as it may DDX will have significant antiair capability though not to the degree of CG21 (CGX?), be able to do antisub warfare, surface support, land attack, and so forth.

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 😀

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:

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.

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.

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!!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.