New Destroyer Emerges in U.S. Plans
Options Mulled As DDG 1000 Hits $6 Billion
A “future surface combatant” (FSC) and the accelerated development of an anti-missile radar could be the U.S. Navy’s answer to new missiles under development by China.
The new ship could become even more central to Navy plans. The price tag for the DDG 1000 destroyer has hit $6 billion a copy, Pentagon documents show. The Zumwalts may be in a Nunn-McCurdy breach, which would require the Navy – already downplaying the ship – to recertify the program’s value to the nation’s defense.
The viability of the Zumwalt class was already in question because of its price tag, which the Navy has declared to be $3.3 billion per ship but which non-Navy analysts put at $5 billion to $7 billion.
A Jan. 26 Memorandum for the Record by John Young, the Pentagon’s top acquisition official, said that the per-ship price as of last July is $5.964 billion. That’s $2.7 billion, or 81 percent, over the Navy’s estimate.
A Nunn-McCurdy breach takes place when a program’s cost hits 15 percent of the baseline cost.
Defense News obtained a copy of the document.
Young, who championed the DDG 1000 a few years ago as the Navy’s weapon buyer, apparently proposed several options to avoid the breach, including placing the FSC in the DDG 1000 budget line. That could bring down the unit price and possibly avoid the Nunn-McCurdy issue – but only technically.
In reality, the FSC may bear little resemblance to the futuristic Zumwalt.
The Navy has not decided what it wants the FSC to be – perhaps a ship based on the DDG 1000; more likely, a version of the DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers that Navy leader Adm. Gary Roughead wants to buy in its place. Some observers said Young seems to be using the indecision about the FSC to protect the DDG 1000.
They also say Young appears to be using the uncertainty about the FSC to criticize the service’s handling of the major radar program – the Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR).
A year ago, AMDR was the name of the radar for the new CG(X) cruiser, which the Navy intended to order in 2011. But plans for the radar have evolved. It is now intended, in an Increment I form, to be fielded in 2015 aboard the FSC. An Increment II version is still to be installed on the new cruiser – but the first CG(X) has been pushed back to 2017, according to Navy planning documents.
The AMDR could represent an opportunity for companies other than Lockheed Martin, which builds the Navy’s Aegis system, to garner a key position in the Navy’s radar programs. Roughead’s decision last summer to “truncate” DDG 1000 production from seven to three ships and instead buy more Aegis-based DDG 51 destroyers was seen as a blow to Massachusetts-based Raytheon, which is leading the effort to develop the Zumwalt-class radar.
Although the Navy said the switch reflected a change in operational requirements, a number of observers viewed the move as a triumph for the Lockheed-led “Aegis mafia.” Raytheon officials and congressional representatives, led by Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., also decried the move.
The Navy and Lockheed, however, have spent considerable effort to move the 1970s-era Aegis system into a modern, open architecture environment, opening up the possibility that more companies could graft their systems and programs into the system. Although no Navy official would speak on the record for this story, privately officials agreed that companies such as Raytheon could, in theory, bid on the new radar, even if were to be an evolution of Aegis.
At a recent review of the AMDR program, Young reportedly criticized the service for its failure to define the FSC.
But it seems clear the Navy wants to further develop the DDG 51, which dates from the early 1980s.
At the recent Surface Navy Association symposium in Washington, Navy officials, from Roughead on down, repeatedly talked about the advantages of hewing to only a handful of basic hull designs and working to extract the maximum from each design’s potential. None mentioned the FSC, but the new ship type seems to be a direct application of the concept.
It is not clear, however, whether the Navy wants to sanction a redesign of the DDG 51 to accommodate more missile launch tubes, a more powerful engineering plant or a much bigger radar. Several sources said the service was directing design studies to hold to the 51’s existing dimensions, but others said those improvements would mean lengthening or otherwise enlarging the hull.
The Navy sees a need for a radar that can handle emerging threats such as a ballistic missile with independently targetable warheads, a weapon under development by China. The roughly 22,000-ton CG(X) will have an integrated power plant that can drive the powerful radars needed to pick up the fast, small warheads. It will be a challenge, Navy and industry experts concede, to create a radar and power plant that are up to the task yet able to fit in the less-than-10,000-ton DDG 51 hull.
But Navy plans show a total of only eight CG(X) cruisers over the next 30 years, far less than the stated requirement for 19 of the ships. That leaves a smaller, “CG(X) light” version of the FSC as a possibility – able, perhaps, to be fielded faster and more cheaply.
The shape of the CG(X) program has been in limbo for more than a year. An Analysis of Alternatives was to have been released in the fall of 2007, but the Navy spent all of last year reviewing and revising the plan, and has yet to announce when it could appear.
From: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3927940&c=FEA&s=CVS
In short the USN now seems to be heading in the direction of the thing that it should have been doing ten years ago. However I have serious issues with this now. USN manning levels and fuel estimates were all based on the DDG1000 and the AB series does not even come close to matching the DDG1000 in either of those categories. There has been significant discussion about modernising the AB’s machinery architecture but nothing practical has yet been done. The harsh reality is that the basic design is staring to show its age compared to what is coming out of European yards (Type 45 in particular).
However the up side is that the USN has finally realised the continuing utility of Mk-41, its associated missiles and the 5 inch gun. Hopefully we can put all the DDG1000 revolutionary star wars nonsense to bed.
As for Aegis, I have never seen a comparison of its effectiveness or development potential compared to the Sampson or APAR. Certainly from a back-end perspective Aegis is doing very well, perhaps if an improvement is required and enlarged version of CEAFAR could be mated to Aegis? I am not a radar expert so I am really just flirting with vagaries.
However the solution would appear to be a new hull with improved machinery mated to a proper Aegis upgrade/replacement but sticking with Mk41 and the 5 inch.
Thoughts?
By: nhampton - 17th February 2009 at 18:46
Firstly I find this Hull AWFUL. Looks to me like WWI Dreadnought, with US civil war ironglad superstructure on it. Why such a stealth warship? This is the first warship on earth without mast!!! If Zumwalt ever copmleted I wonder were they fly their flag? I adore Arleigh Burges. They are real warships, powerful enough and technologicaly at the highest level compared with other navies ships. They have even larger amount of VLS than the Zumhalts. They have 96 VLS, and Zumhalts only 80. Also I dont understand the need of these 6.1 inch railguns. You have Tomahawks for this job and for shorter ranges you have Harpoon BlockII. They have excactly the same range as the rail gun , 140km. Finally I want to ask were is the funel of Zumhalt at the superstructure? I think they forgot the Funel…
Well you do have good taste in warships. I agree, DDG-1000 looks awful. More important the hull form, according to some experts, is not good. There is not enough reserve buoyancy to keep the thing afloat if she takes on water. While I think stealth is a really good thing in a jet fighter, it is totally out of place in a warship.
By: BREZHNEV - 17th February 2009 at 15:41
Firstly I find this Hull AWFUL. Looks to me like WWI Dreadnought, with US civil war ironglad superstructure on it. Why such a stealth warship? This is the first warship on earth without mast!!! If Zumwalt ever copmleted I wonder were they fly their flag? I adore Arleigh Burges. They are real warships, powerful enough and technologicaly at the highest level compared with other navies ships. They have even larger amount of VLS than the Zumhalts. They have 96 VLS, and Zumhalts only 80. Also I dont understand the need of these 6.1 inch railguns. You have Tomahawks for this job and for shorter ranges you have Harpoon BlockII. They have excactly the same range as the rail gun , 140km. Finally I want to ask were is the funel of Zumhalt at the superstructure? I think they forgot the Funel…
By: nhampton - 17th February 2009 at 04:22
A very intersting article:
Indeed. Keep in mind it was a report by the Congressional Research Service (the government) and not an article per say. That said, good find. Very interesting reading.
As a design for series production, I think the problem with the DDG-1000 is two fold. First, it really is a one dimensional ship. It is meant to provide gunfire support for beach landings. Never mind the Marines have not had an opposed landing since the Korean war, no one is going to confuse AGS with the 16/50 Mk 7 guns on the Iowas. The second problem is that the Navy had hoped to be able to use the hull and some of the machinery for the CG-21. It appears the Navy is having second thoughts about fitting a nuclear power plant in the hull, and the viability of the the hull form is being questioned as well.
The Navy has some other initiatives that they want to try out with the DDG-1000 such as reduced manning, lower radar profile, and turbo electric drive. All things that can either be retro fitted to existing ships or designed into new ones. It is also big enough to fit an energy weapon or rail gun. Both of which are near to the point where they could go to sea for real world testing. Rather than battle force (fleet) units, it appears that these ships will be technology demonstrators with the secondary mission of providing gunfire support for the Marines.
I think the production run stays at two or three hulls and they continue to build DDG-51s of some sort for the next few years until they are ready to start building the next generation cruiser sometime in the 2017-2020 time period when the Ticos start to approach their end of life.
By: BREZHNEV - 16th February 2009 at 15:30
A very intersting article:
By: sferrin - 13th February 2009 at 14:40
Waldenbooks….spot on, I used to have one at my local mall, and I had some lil podunk bookstore where I actually bought these books, and I remember the land warfare one sitting there, and I didnt buy it “smacks head”. Those were good times, as you said Sferrin, there seemed to be a new half decent book on the shelves every month….Now, I gota peddle through all your guys stuff on KeyPub and try to figure out somethin 🙂
If you went over to Secret Projects and said “I need a list of books to read” I’m sure they could come up with a LONG list. 😉
By: chuck1981 - 13th February 2009 at 05:52
That’s what I loved about the early/mid 80’s. You could go down to Waldenbooks and they’d have a new Salamander book or two almost every week it seemed.
Waldenbooks….spot on, I used to have one at my local mall, and I had some lil podunk bookstore where I actually bought these books, and I remember the land warfare one sitting there, and I didnt buy it “smacks head”. Those were good times, as you said Sferrin, there seemed to be a new half decent book on the shelves every month….Now, I gota peddle through all your guys stuff on KeyPub and try to figure out somethin 🙂
By: SOC - 12th February 2009 at 02:55
That’s what I miss about living in Europe, the bookstores over there had a much better aviation-related stock than your average Borders or B&N stateside.
By: sferrin - 12th February 2009 at 00:51
Yes, I just pulled the book out of mothballs, it is called Modern Naval Combat by David Miller and Chris Miller. I never bought the Land Warfare book for some idiotic reason, but I do have the Air Warfare book. These books got me started in my never ending search for new reading material for my library.
That’s what I loved about the early/mid 80’s. You could go down to Waldenbooks and they’d have a new Salamander book or two almost every week it seemed.
By: chuck1981 - 11th February 2009 at 22:16
Did your Naval Warfare book happen to be blue? (And the land one brown and the air one green?)
Yes, I just pulled the book out of mothballs, it is called Modern Naval Combat by David Miller and Chris Miller. I never bought the Land Warfare book for some idiotic reason, but I do have the Air Warfare book. These books got me started in my never ending search for new reading material for my library.
By: nhampton - 11th February 2009 at 17:44
Do you have any news for DDG 1000? Who supports it and who supports the “next generation” of DDG-51 family?
It’s really a mixed bag. clearly there is a need beyond what the Burke’s can offer, but I not sure anyone is convinced that the DDG-1000s fit the bill. You can read a good analysis of the situation here:
http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-gates-chooses-ddg-1000-over-ddg-51.html
Gates is apparently for DDG-1000 for some very good reasons. The Navy doesn’t like it for some very good reasons. Time will tell.
By: BREZHNEV - 11th February 2009 at 14:50
Actually both of them are cruisers. The term “cruiser” refers to a ship with multiple roles. A cruiser can opperate at its own hunting her victims, or in escorting duties. Cruiser is a vessel with 4 dimentional battle capability(AAW, Land Attack, ASW, and antiship). Both Ticos and Burges have these capabilities. Do you have any news for DDG 1000? Who supports it and who supports the “next generation” of DDG-51 family?
By: nhampton - 11th February 2009 at 14:02
There isn’t any sort of classification as has been pointed out by numerous posters, on either side of the argument. The Navies of the world have screwed up the “classifying” strategy to the point that there is no point in arguing over it….there is no standard…. I remember reading this problem of classification when I was younger (10+ years) when I bought a book about Naval Warfare (it was part of a series, Air, Land etc etc…..BTW Sferrin, this is where I read the overhaul of the Iowa BBs was cheaper per ship than a new Perry Frigate).
Ship tonnage/capability have so far outstripped the original classification strategy that there is no longer any point in basing a classification purely on hull form.
True bringing New Jersey out of mothballs and modernizing it in 1982 cost about $450 million. About the same as buying a new OHP frigate.
As for cruiser, I think our friend Lawrence is getting confused with the old USN WWII standard for a cruiser hull. This standard was relevant in the time when guns where the paramount weapon on a ship. Back in the day the things that separated a USN cruiser from a destroyer where as follows. Twin screw, single rudder, an armored hull and deck, main armament greater than 5 inch guns. It had nothing to do with anything else.
The rise of missiles and electronics made this “standard” superfluous and the USN for a time started calling its cruisers (by virtue of displacement, magazine capacity and number of missile illuminators) destroyers and frigates because those labels had a more “budget friendly” sound to them.
With the Ticos and Burkes, who knows. The Ticos have a bit more missile capacity and an extra illuminator but other than that I would think that the later Burkes are every bit as capable and in some cases more capable than a Tico. Perhaps the Ticos have greater range?
By: sferrin - 11th February 2009 at 04:09
There isn’t any sort of classification as has been pointed out by numerous posters, on either side of the argument. The Navies of the world have screwed up the “classifying” strategy to the point that there is no point in arguing over it….there is no standard…. I remember reading this problem of classification when I was younger (10+ years) when I bought a book about Naval Warfare (it was part of a series, Air, Land etc etc…..BTW Sferrin, this is where I read the overhaul of the Iowa BBs was cheaper per ship than a new Perry Frigate).
Ship tonnage/capability have so far outstripped the original classification strategy that there is no longer any point in basing a classification purely on hull form.
Did your Naval Warfare book happen to be blue? (And the land one brown and the air one green?)
By: chuck1981 - 11th February 2009 at 03:19
There isn’t any sort of classification as has been pointed out by numerous posters, on either side of the argument. The Navies of the world have screwed up the “classifying” strategy to the point that there is no point in arguing over it….there is no standard…. I remember reading this problem of classification when I was younger (10+ years) when I bought a book about Naval Warfare (it was part of a series, Air, Land etc etc…..BTW Sferrin, this is where I read the overhaul of the Iowa BBs was cheaper per ship than a new Perry Frigate).
Ship tonnage/capability have so far outstripped the original classification strategy that there is no longer any point in basing a classification purely on hull form.
By: Wanshan - 10th February 2009 at 23:46
I think you will find all those ships built as destroyers during world war 2 were in fact destroyers.;)
But you weren’t talking about WW2-era ships now, were you?
“The RN county class for instance were well beyond any DDG built to date for that service yet were still built to destroyer standards.”
1. Prior to County class there weren’t any DDG in the RN, as County class was RN’s first DDG, so how could it be beyond any DDG built to date for that service (
By: kev 99 - 10th February 2009 at 14:03
I’m almost positive that T45s don’t have flag facilities.
By: AegisFC - 10th February 2009 at 13:45
I suppose that must be where the extra couple of hundred tons deadweight of the tico’s comes into play then, that and the extra 30 or so VLS cells.
Not really, the flag facilities I’m talking about are extra berthing space, consoles and large screen displays in CIC and comms gear. The “dead weight” comes from several tons of ballast at the bottom of the ship to help smooth them out, several tons of Kevlar armor lining the forward superstructure and heavy equipment very high up in the ship.
The cruiser-mod program will lighten them a bit by removing obsolete equipment but by how much I have no clue.
I believe the T45’s have flag facilities though i’m unsure how extensive they are. I’m going to make a wild assumption here and say that the Spanish F100 design probably has decent flag facilities based on the fact that Australia is purchasing them and that other then the pair of LPA’s we have no dedicated command vessels as far as i am aware.
I’m not sure how those ships are setup, give me some time and I’ll see if I can find something on the F-100’s.
By: BREZHNEV - 10th February 2009 at 13:11
As I know the Ticos have problem with their superstructure. Too huge superstructure and sometimes they suffer unstability problems. The same happens with Slavas. On the other hand Burkes have perfect shape and more normal superstructure. I dont know where is the problem with DDG 51. Why USN officials are such DDG 51 haters? DDG 1000s ARE NOT warships they are “monitors”. At the battle between DDG 51 and DDG 1000 I wish 51 to be the winner.
By: StevoJH - 10th February 2009 at 10:05
One of the real operational differences between a Burke and a Tico is that the Tico’s have much better facilities for flag officers and battle group command staff, those facilities are absent on a Burke. You can embark a DESRON or higher on a Burke but it is a cramped fit.
If those other ships have the extra facilities then I’d group them into the cruiser class, but if they don’t then they are just big destroyers.
I suppose that must be where the extra couple of hundred tons deadweight of the tico’s comes into play then, that and the extra 30 or so VLS cells.
I believe the T45’s have flag facilities though i’m unsure how extensive they are. I’m going to make a wild assumption here and say that the Spanish F100 design probably has decent flag facilities based on the fact that Australia is purchasing them and that other then the pair of LPA’s we have no dedicated command vessels as far as i am aware.
By: sealordlawrence - 9th February 2009 at 23:10
In fact, the County class was the UK’s first DDG (DLG actually). And only the UK’s second post-war destroyer class (the first being the 3800 ton Daring class, which has no missiles at all). Beyond it, there is the single 6,000 tons Type 82 guided missile destroyer Bristol, beyond which comes the 4,350 – 5,350 tons full load Type 42 Sheffield class DDG.
County class used GWS-1 Sea Slug , the RN’s first and only AAD guided SAM until the advent of GWS-30 Sea Dart in the 1970s. (not counting the short range Sea Cat of the 1960s, which was replaced by the short range Sea Wolf)
Bainbridge, Long Beach and Enterprise:
I think you will find all those ships built as destroyers during world war 2 were in fact destroyers.;)
Sign In
February 3, 2009 at 11:21 am