US Navy to move forward with first eight DDX

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


ddx_deckhouse.jpg

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.
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
I'm happy that the USN has decided top go on with the program. I really think that the high cost of these ships will keep it's numbers limited. In the final production I think we will see no more than 12.

ddx_dec04_aftprt_1.jpg
 

PiSigma

"the engineer"
considering the high price tag of these destroyers, wouldn't following the PLAN model of building 2 at once a better way for trials?? it would save them a lot of money, and not all 8 of them would have the same problems. of course it would take a longer time, but no other nation have any technology anywhere near what the DDX have.
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
PiSigma said:
considering the high price tag of these destroyers, wouldn't following the PLAN model of building 2 at once a better way for trials?? it would save them a lot of money, and not all 8 of them would have the same problems. of course it would take a longer time, but no other nation have any technology anywhere near what the DDX have.

The way the US shipbuilding industry is set up the ships will cost about the same after the first couple are built with the first couple costing the most. Also In answer to that this is from globalsecurity;

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Though the first class of ships will be nearly identical to the DD21 destroyer that has been on the drawing board for a few years, possible changes to future generations of ships won’t be stymied by having only one plan and design. After that class is designed, the next step will be to build a new ship that the Navy is calling ‘CG(X)’ that focuses more on air warfare, to include the Navy’s role in ballistic missile defense. DD-21 was focused on land-attack missions, which are very important, but that’s not the only thing the Navy needs to accomplish.

I went to a couple of USN web sites and this is what I found on the DD(X) program..

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
bd popeye said:
The way the US shipbuilding industry is set up the ships will cost about the same after the first couple are built with the first couple costing the most.
Great comments popeye. Sort of like the Spruance was the hull design for the Ticos, this hull will be used for the upcoiming CGX as well I bet.

My guess, like yours, is that there will be twelve of these babies. The Long range bombarments capability of the two 155mm guns, the 80 PVLS cells capable of Tactical Tomahawk IV and the Advanced Land Attack Missile, as well as a lot of Evolved Sea Sparrows, will make this a signifcant high tech, forward looking vessel. The tech developed there will be critical for other programs and the CGX will follow right along.

Here are some more pics:

ddx_apr05_helo1.jpg



ddx_2003_1014.jpg


ddx_dec04_aft_3k.jpg


ddx-020429-d-6570c-003.jpg
 

PiSigma

"the engineer"
wouldn't a heliocopter parked on the DDX kinda compremise it's stealth??? bc the deck is really big for a destroyer... and the hanger seems to be only able to hold max of two helios...or maybe that space is reserved for something else... they can totally move the superstructure back or make it bigger.. and add more missiles to that thing.
 

adeptitus

Captain
VIP Professional
The US military budget request for 2006 is $441.6 billion USD. If there's a need for it, I don't think the USN would be so cash strapped that they couldn't get a few extra ships at $3 billion each.

My question on the new DDX is, why 2 x 155mm (6.1") AGS +920 rounds in storage? Speaking as an amateur here - my preference would be to reduce the guns to 1 x 155mm AGS with 460 rounds and use the space for some ASROC rockets and a 30mm CIWS gun.

Call me old fashioned but if there's an anti-ship missile coming my way, I'd feel a LOT better if I have a 30mm GAU-8/A gatling cannon as the last line of defense. When all else fails, I want that stream of hot lead to obliterate the AShM.
 
Last edited:

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
PiSigma said:
wouldn't a heliocopter parked on the DDX kinda compremise it's stealth??? bc the deck is really big for a destroyer... and the hanger seems to be only able to hold max of two helios...or maybe that space is reserved for something else... they can totally move the superstructure back or make it bigger.. and add more missiles to that thing.
Helos are critical for ASW work and they would be stored in the hangar. Two helos is a standard load for us DDGs.

As to the hangar size, my guess is that there will also be several UAVs embarked on the DDX.

adeptitus said:
The US military budget request for 2006 is $441.6 billion USD. If there's a need for it, I don't think the USN would be so cash strapped that they couldn't get a few extra ships at $3 billion each.

My question on the new DDX is, why 2 x 155mm (6.1") AGS +920 rounds in storage? Speaking as an amateur here - my person preference would be to reduce the guns to 1 x 155mm AGS with 460 rounds and use the space for some ASROC rockets and a 30mm CIWS gun.

Call me old fashioned but if there's an anti-ship missile coming my way, I'd feel a LOT better if I have a 30mm GAU-8/A gatling cannon as the last line of defense. When all else fails, I want that stream of hot lead to obliterate the AShM.
My guess is that there will be CIWS and maybe RAM on the DDX. As it stands, there will also be a LOT of Evovled Sea Sparrow AAW missiles. They have 80 PVLS slots and each one they load with Evolved Sea Sparrows will carry four missiles. Apparently they will aslo carriy standard missiles for longer range intercepts.

One of the primary missions for the DDX will be shore bombarment at long range (well inland, up to 100 miles-160km) for Marine operations. Two of them gives them twice the fire power and fire missions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Scratch

Captain
To add latest developments and bring the topic back again.

For once, there's a good
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
article that gives some insight and lists many of the project related contracts over the last three years.

Next is the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
on that ship.

And another
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
with info on it.

Though some sourcs still speak of two lead ships, there now seems to be one last remaining team consisting of four contractors:
* Northrop Grumman Ingalls (ship design & build)
* General Dynamics Bath Iron works (ship design & build)
* Raytheon (mission systems integration which includes sensors, combat systems, electronics, and the PVLS)
* BAE Systems (AGS gun system)

It's now said the hanger will accomodate one MH-60R and three VTUAVs, there is capacity for two MH-60R.

The lead ship could well cost US$3.3Bn (in FY11) (compared to the lead Burke that would cost 2.4Bn in '07 $)
The fifth ship is set to cost around 2.4Bn. Lifecycle costs will increase from 2.4Bn (Burkes) to 4Bn.

Some weeks ago there were
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(further links in the text) of naval officers and engineers questioning the seaworthyness of the tumblehome hull design. Have not yet found something further if that problem has beed solved or if it even exists.

As I understand, a final build order is to be given in eraly 2007 and the first ship to be laid down in June '07. Haven't seen anything definite on it yet.

Key issuis, like the main gun, dual band radar, electric power devices and the ship computing enviroment seem to have been fixed or to be well on path.
 

Scratch

Captain
"US Navy orders new destroyers"

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Construction of the first two DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class advanced destroyers is set to begin after the U.S. Navy awarded its two primary shipbuilders $2.8 billion in contracts Feb. 14.
...

Finally the programm seems to bear fruit, with the first ship to be delivered in June 2013.
 
Top