The deckhouse of an experimental naval destroyer, the DD(X), pictured here at China Lake, California in an undated photo.
The Pentagon has opted to move ahead with the new multibillion-dollar destroyer being co-developed by Northrop Grumman Corp. and General Dynamics, Navy officials said on Wednesday.
The Pentagon will order an initial eight highly-automated DD(X) destroyers being developed by Northrop Grumman Corp. (NYSE:NOC – news) and General Dynamics (NYSE:GD – news) as the centerpiece of the U.S. Navy’s 21st century fleet, a defense official said on Wednesday.
Ending speculation the ship might be killed, the Defense Department cleared a plan to let both Los Angeles-based Northrop and General Dynamics, Falls Church, Virginia, each go ahead with detailed design work, the Pentagon said.
The chief U.S. weapons buyer, Kenneth Krieg, also approved “low rate initial production” of eight ships after a meeting on Tuesday of the Defense Acquisition Board, which considers major weapons systems, said the defense official who asked not to be named because he was not authorized to speak about the matter.
He estimated the value of the eight ships at $20 billion.
The DD(X) will have substantially lower radar and acoustic “signatures” — making it harder for an enemy to find and hit — and be highly automated to cut crew size by more than half compared with current destroyer levels.
It will incorporate new technologies that also would be used in a new aircraft carrier and a new cruiser. The Navy hopes the first DD(X) will be delivered in 2012.
Cheryl Irwin, a Pentagon spokeswoman, confirmed that Krieg had cleared the program to enter a big-money phase known as “system development and demonstration.” But she said she had no information on the number of ships to be built.
No construction contracts would be awarded until a further session of the acquisition board, the defense official said, citing a memorandum from Krieg that was not made public.
TWIN BUILDING PROJECTS
Navy officials said Krieg had cleared a Navy request to start the acquisition program with a “dual lead ship” strategy using fiscal 2007 funds.
According to this Northrop and General Dynamics each will build a ship of its own to meet requirements set by the Pentagon and the Navy, Navy spokesman Lt. John Gay said. On completion, the Navy will recommend whether to continue splitting the construction or go with one of the two yards.
Such a decision may be made in 2008 or 2009, said the defense official. Each of the two initial ships to be built — one by each yard — is projected to cost $3.3 billion. The Navy hopes to drive down the price of future ships to $2.2 billion.
Krieg gave the go-ahead after a “Milestone B” review — the decision on whether to let DD(X) advance despite expected delays or cuts in other big-ticket weapons programs as the United States copes with war costs, a growing deficit and hurricane relief, among other headaches.
Key senators had blocked the Navy’s earlier-proposed “winner-take-all” approach to building DD(X), which it said would cost less, on the ground it likely would knock the losing company out of the business of building surface warships.
The Pentagon’s DD(X) decision “takes us through a critical threshold,” said Randy Belote, a spokesman for Northrop, which would build its version of the ship at its Pascagoula, Mississippi, shipyard.
By: Arabella-Cox - 19th December 2005 at 00:23
Curious how many VLS will DD(X) in fact have. Most web sources stated number 80, but few also 128.
The latter valur brings more sense for me, becouse dropped Blue Team proposal also have 128 cells (in two groups per 64) and one can quess that USN will not pick-up ship with less firepower.Another interesting issue on DD(X) is absence of 324 mm torpedo tubes for LW torpedoes compared with all previous DDGs.
Have anybody pics of BLue Team proposal?
I would have to agree with a the latter? As the DD(X) was suppose to carry more than the current Burke Class………… 😀
By: zajcev - 17th December 2005 at 16:07
Curious how many VLS will DD(X) in fact have. Most web sources stated number 80, but few also 128.
The latter valur brings more sense for me, becouse dropped Blue Team proposal also have 128 cells (in two groups per 64) and one can quess that USN will not pick-up ship with less firepower.
Another interesting issue on DD(X) is absence of 324 mm torpedo tubes for LW torpedoes compared with all previous DDGs.
Have anybody pics of BLue Team proposal?
By: Jeff Head - 2nd December 2005 at 05:42
The Arleigh Burke can keep their speed certainly in much worse conditions than the DDX design would.
Time shall tell so we shall see. I have the utmost faith in the design teams working on these vessels and th US Navy program managers and specifications and believe that a reduction in capability over current vessels is not in the works.
By: Arabella-Cox - 2nd December 2005 at 01:31
It’s not speculation but hydrodynamics :diablo:
Maybe the DD(X) has some capability to make up for any hydrodynamic drawback by other means……………… :rolleyes:
By: snake65 - 1st December 2005 at 12:58
It’s not speculation but hydrodynamics :diablo:
By: bring_it_on - 1st December 2005 at 12:19
Speculation!!
By: leon - 1st December 2005 at 08:12
In those sea states, I believe the speed is reduced in any case.
The Arleigh Burke can keep their speed certainly in much worse conditions than the DDX design would.
By: Jeff Head - 30th November 2005 at 23:36
If the waves brake over the bow, a) the equipment on the decks will be demaged and b) the speed of the ships will be much reduced. a) appears not to be the problem, because there is not much on the decks. But b) will be a problem.
In those sea states, I believe the speed is reduced in any case.
By: Forestin - 30th November 2005 at 20:32
BitsnBytes: Don’t confuse the DD 21 Zumberwalt with the DD(X). Both designs have nothing to do with each other & the DD(X) is not thought to submerege partialy.
By: leon - 30th November 2005 at 07:50
Water breaking over the bow is not a sea worthiness issue with a tight, stable ship so much as it is a personnel issue. Perhaps the new design does not envision the necessity of personnel out on the bow deck in those conditions..
If the waves brake over the bow, a) the equipment on the decks will be demaged and b) the speed of the ships will be much reduced. a) appears not to be the problem, because there is not much on the decks. But b) will be a problem.
By: BitsnBytes - 30th November 2005 at 04:31
nice design, hope India learns a bit from this for their next DDG / FFG
By: BitsnBytes - 30th November 2005 at 04:30
GD – The atypical bow is probally required for its ability to partially submergence of the hull, which allows DDX to reduce its vunerability to SSMs, as the main portion of the hull will be below the waterline when allowed.
The obtuse angle to the waterline (inward sloping ) should offer less resistance when it submerges.
With the clean and essentially sealed deck, water over the bow shouldn’t be a big issue.
By: WisePanda - 30th November 2005 at 03:53
what is the need for that atypical bow shape ? frontal stealth ? wouldnt it work the other way round at the same angle also – i.e. current bow shape ?
By: Jeff Head - 29th November 2005 at 23:53
This is really difficult to belief. The hull of the DDX appears to be a step backwards in regard to the seaworthiness.
Water breaking over the bow is not a sea worthiness issue with a tight, stable ship so much as it is a personnel issue. Perhaps the new design does not envision the necessity of personnel out on the bow deck in those conditions.
As I stated, I would bet that the design is going to be tested rigorously and will end up being extremely sea worthy in all sea states…and be able to travel with the any of the carrier, amphibious, or surface strike groups they are assigned to.
By: Forestin - 29th November 2005 at 15:30
Well, 150yrs ago the Bow shape was that way becouse they still used to incorporate a spoiler (like the Trirams). By that it was more for a practical reason then a Hydrodynamic (or a Radar Reflecting one ;)).
Like Leon said it, that design is very wet on the forward deck, & that is why it is good for costal & calm waters (the ship cuts through the waves instead of splashing over them), but realy $hity for Blue or stormy sea (which does not mean that it will sink or turn, but that its sailing conditions are worse).
So this design is stable on a forward/back axis, but more instable on the port/starboard one.
The last one isn’t realy a problem since it can be fixed with winglets attachet to the hull, like on the cruise ships.
Regarding the Pic:
I am well aware that hat Pic is from way before the DD 21 was designed, But if you look, you got the DD(X) with the inverted bow for costal, next to it the CG(X) with the same superstrcture & hull arangement then the DD(X) but with a normal bow & the LCS Triram with the invcerted Bow again for costal operations.
So, it wouldn’t be strange if the CG(X) has a normal Bow again for high Bluewater conditions
By: johnestauffer - 29th November 2005 at 15:20
I am concerned about the reduced crew. Physically the ship is quite large. There are a lot of systems to maintain. There is a lot of space to be responsible for.
When the ship is in a combat situation you need sufficient personnel for damage control. Does this reduced crew have enough people to insure the ship’s survivial in these situations?
In port security requirements have increased. More of the ship’s company is being used as part of the security watches? Can smaller crew’s meet these requirements?
The USN has a lot of daily operating requirements for a ship. Will the overall workload of the DDx crew be altered to allow a smaller crew to meet all of the routine operational requirements?
What about personnel taking leave or having medical emergencies? Will the smaller ship’s company be able to cover for absent crew?
Reliability is key. In the military it seems you can achieve reliability through redundancy. You build in redundancy into the systems. Are we including redundancy in the manning levels as well?.
By: leon - 29th November 2005 at 14:18
They have already built a 1/4 scale model of the vessel and have been testing it for some time. I believe we will see that the sea keeping qualities are very solid and that these vessels will hold together just fine in the worst of sea states.
This is really difficult to belief. The bow above water is very similar to the ships around 1900 – and they were very wet forward. There is nothing to deflect the waves. Therefore the waves break over the ship.
All modern ships have a very exaggerated bow to deflect the waves, e.g. the Arleigh Burke class or the Udaloy class. It is also possible to see the development of the bow, e.g. if you compare a destroyer of the Fletcher class, Charles F. Adams class and Arleigh Burke class. The hull of the DDX appears to be a step backwards in regard to the seaworthiness.
P.S. Why is the form of the gun turrets that strange? Do they contain some shelter for the barrel? This could hint to an expected wetness to protect the gun.
By: WisePanda - 29th November 2005 at 14:10
history turns a full circle..150 yrs after civil war the Monitor design emerges from the
mists of time.
By: Jeff Head - 29th November 2005 at 13:21
They better check and re-check the sea keeping qualities of this design before they spend 20 billion dollars on a ship that can only sail through calm waters.
They have already built a 1/4 scale model of the vessel and have been testing it for some time. I believe we will see that the sea keeping qualities are very solid and that these vessels will hold together just fine in the worst of sea states.
By: sferrin - 29th November 2005 at 07:00
That pic is WAY old. Before the Zumwalt days.
Sign In
November 24, 2005 at 1:56 am