(See) DDG(X) - Zerstörerprogramm der US Navy

[Schneemann]

Ehrlich gesagt konnte ich es kaum erwarten, dass es hier endlich Fortschritte gibt und dass man dazu einen Strang eröffnen kann. Beinahe hätte ich mit den Hufen gescharrt und gerufen: "Da ist er endlich!" Fakt ist, dass die Arleigh Burkes nach dem Flight III so langsam an ihre Grenzen stoßen, hervorragende Schiffe, keine Frage, aber es war Zeit, dass es ein Nachfolgekonzept gibt, sind sie doch langsam seit beinahe 40 Jahren im Dienst bzw. im Bau. Interessant in jedem Fall, dass das Tumblehome-Design der Zumwalts hier anscheinend nicht mehr zum Tragen kommt, sondern dass es ein vergleichsweise konservatives Design sein dürfte (mit natürlich all den bekannten Stealth-Aspekten), welches die Fähigkeiten von Arleigh Burkes und der Ticonderoga-Klasse verschmilzt...

U.S. Navy Reveals Plans And Ideas For The DDG(X) Next-Gen Destroyer

Presented at the Surface Navy Association’s 2022 National Symposium (SNA 2022), held LIVE in-person and streamed virtually on the week of January 10, 2022, the U.S. Navy’s Program Executive Office (PEO) Ships briefed reporters on the preliminary details for the next-generation destroyer, the DDG(X), the successor to the Arleigh Burke-class DDG 51 Flight Three destroyers.

Still in pre-design stages, the information and design of the DDG(X) is subject to change over time; however, the U.S. Navy does want an Integrated Power System (IPS) and Baseline Capabilities of evolutionary technologies rather than revolutionary technologies to minimize construction risk. [...]

When compared to the DDG 51 destroyers, these DDG(X) requirements are:

- New flexibility and new margins for the next-generation destroyer. Space reservations to add new systems, sensor growth, high-energy lasers, and to accommodate larger missile cells (such as for hypersonic missiles) than the Mark 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) for longer-range offensive Anti-surface and strike capabilities.
- Improved reduction in signatures to reduce vulnerability. Acoustic, infrared, and electromagnetic signatures will all be improved by greater than 50%. Two 21-cell RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) launchers will be mounted on DDG(X) and a high-energy laser for close-in self-protection. The arrays will be larger and DDG(X) will have an upgraded X-band radar.
- Increased mobility with a range of greater than 50%, time on station increased to greater than 120%, and efficiency to greater than 25%.
- Destroyer Payload Module (DPM) which is similar in concept to the Virginia-class nuclear attack submarine’s Payload Module “plug-in” section. The DPM can be “plugged into” the DDG(X) hull in the future to permanently increase the length and size of the ship to accommodate future systems such as new sensors, weapons, Mission Modules, storage, machinery and equipment, payloads, rooms, etc.
- Technology maturation and risk reduction by inserting new technology when it is the right time to do it (hence the Destroyer Payload Module option).
- As authorized by Congress, any critical DDG(X) system has to go through land-based testing before start of a detailed design and reaching Milestone B. Critical systems for the DDG(X) are the Integrated Power System (IPS) and the new hull form. [...]

For speculative discussion purposes, the preliminary draft concept design shows a sharply raked new hull form for the DDG(X) with a bulbous bow that might contain a sonar. No mention of a towed sonar array was included in the graphic at this pre-decisional stage. [...]

The DDG(X) appears to have a 5-inch gun turret forward and set further back from the bow than the DDG 51. The VLS cell count starts with a 32-cell VLS bank at the bow that can be upgraded to twelve large missile cell launchers in the future for accommodation of Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) hypersonic missiles or future longer-range missiles that have dimensions larger than the Mark 41 VLS. The exact number of VLS cells so far is undetermined since certain DDG(X)s may be lengthened to accommodate more VLS cells, meaning no two DDG(X)s may be alike. Interestingly, the rear VLS cell bank has moved to amidships similar to the Chinese People Liberation Army Navy’s (PLAN) Type-055 Renhai-class destroyers. NAVSEA declined to comment to Naval News’ inquiry seeking a reason for this Vertical Launch System (VLS) placement decision. Naval News can speculate that the Destroyer Payload Module (DPM) “plug-in” option can increase the VLS cell count and mix-and-match different types of VLS designs (for larger missiles) if more DPMs were added to that section where the rear VLS cell bank will be located. [...] Also, hypothetically, the FPA can contribute to the Air Warfare Defense Boss role with a DPM acting as a dedicated Air Warfare Combat Information Center (CIC), a role often devoted to the aging Ticonderoga-class cruisers that ride shotgun to the Navy’s nuclear-powered aircraft carriers because the current DDG 51s lack the space and capability for the Air Warfare Boss. DDG(X)s with an Air Warfare Boss CIC DPM installed can remedy this space issue, and the larger 18-foot AN/SPY-6 Aegis radar arrays and DPMs for more VLS cells in the future can make up for the Ticonderoga cruiser’s Air Warfare Boss role.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/202...destroyer/

Schneemann

[Schneemann]

Gibbs & Cox wins $30 milllion contract for future DDG(X) destroyer

According to information published by the U.S. DoD on February 21, 2022, Gibbs & Cox Inc is awarded a $29,561,327 contract for supporting surface combatant ship design and engineering efforts for the Navy’s Future Surface Combatant Force, primarily in support of the DDG(X) program. [...] Gibbs & Cox is an American naval architecture firm that specializes in designing surface warships. In 2003, more than 150 warships built to the firm's designs, including 60 percent of the U.S. Navy's surface combatant fleet, were on active duty in nearly 20 navies.

http://navyrecognition.com/index.php/nav...royer.html

Schneemann

[Schneemann]

Senate, Navy Pushing for Bath Iron Works, Ingalls DDG(X) Destroyer Team Up

The push to develop the Navy’s next-generation destroyer will be a team effort between General Dynamics Bath Iron Works and HII’s Ingalls Shipbuilding if the Navy and the Senate Armed Services Committee have their way.

Instead of competing for the primary contract to build DDG(X), the service wants the two yards to take a page from the teaming agreement between General Dynamics Electric Boat and HII’s Newport News Shipbuilding to design and construct the Columbia-class nuclear ballistic missile, several legislative and service officials told USNI News this week. On Monday, the Senate Armed Services released its Fiscal Year 2023 authorization bill, which includes language that directs the Navy to pursue the teaming agreement for DDG(X) without naming Ingalls and Bath. But the Navy wants the arrangement for those two shipyards, USNI News understands. [...]

“The committee notes that many recent Navy shipbuilding programs, including the DDG-1000 and Littoral Combat Ship programs, experienced significant cost increases, program delays, and reliability issues due to flaws in the earliest acquisition strategies,” according to the report language paired with the bill that was filed on Monday.

“Accordingly, the committee believes it is critical that the Navy work closely with industry to ensure appropriate design and technical maturity in developing lead ship acquisition strategies. The committee further believes that the DDG(X) acquisition strategy should be modeled on and leverage the best practices of the Columbia-class Integrated Product and Process Development (IPPD) contract, with integrated lines of effort in design, technology maturation, and construction.” [...]

The next-generation destroyer is set to follow the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer and Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser, an effort the Navy has attempted since the 2000s.

At the time, the Burkes and Ticos were going to be superseded by the Zumwalt-class guided-missile destroyer and a massive 20,000-ton next-generation cruiser called CG(X). CG(X) was canceled for cost and the Zumwalts were trimmed to just three as part of the Fiscal Year 2010 defense budget.

https://news.usni.org/2022/07/21/senate-...er-team-up

Schneemann

[Schneemann]

HII wins design engineering contract for US Navy’s DDG(X) programme

The first guided-missile destroyer is scheduled to be procured in 2028. [...]

Huntington Ingalls Industries’ (HII) Ingalls Shipbuilding division has received a contract for the next-generation guided-missile destroyer (DDG(X)) programme. Awarded by the US Navy, the cost-plus-incentive-fee contract involves the design and engineering of the DDG(X). [...] HII’s Ingalls Shipbuilding is also a major contractor and shipbuilding partner for the DDG 51 programme. It has delivered around 33 destroyers to the US Navy, while five are under construction.

https://www.naval-technology.com/news/hi...programme/

Schneemann

[Schneemann]

DDG(X) Destroyer Could Cost Up to $3.4B a Hull, SSN(X) Attack Boat Up to $7.2B, Says CBO Report

The Navy’s next-generation guided-missile destroyer could cost up to $3.4 billion a ship, while its next-generation SSN(X) attack boat could cost up to $7.2 billion – figures that are billions over the service’s own estimates, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s annual analysis of the Navy’s long-range shipbuilding plan. The procurement of both SSN(X) and DDG(X) comes as the Navy faces several years of flat budgets heading into the into the 2030s and as several major procurement programs compete for money within the service and with the priorities of the Office of Secretary of Defense. [...]

In all the estimates, CBO found that the Navy underestimated the cost of its shipbuilding plans by $4 to $5 billion annually over the 30-year life of the proposals. “The Navy’s cost estimates are, $689 billion for Alternative 1, $696 billion for Alternative 2, and $763 billion for Alternative 3 (or, over 30 years, an average of $23.0 billion, $23.2 billion, and $25.4 billion per year, respectively),” reads the report. “CBO estimates that buying only the new ships specified in the Navy’s 2023 plan would cost $795 billion under Alternative 1, $834 billion under Alternative 2, and $881 billion under Alternative 3 (or, over 30 years, an average of $26.5 billion, $27.8 billion, and $29.4 billion per year, respectively—all in 2022 dollars).”

https://news.usni.org/2022/11/10/ddgx-de...cbo-report

Schneemann

[Schneemann]

US Navy secretary sees no need to rush next-gen destroyer program

NEW YORK — The U.S. Navy is not in a hurry to move onto the next-generation destroyer program, dubbed DDG(X), but will instead wait until a design and the underlying technology is ready, the service secretary said. As a result, “we probably will continue to build DDG Flight IIIs for a long period of time,” Carlos Del Toro said of the current program of record. [...]

The Navy is eyeing three major new programs whose timing, as previously outlined by the Navy, would have created a pileup of cost and risk for the service in the early 2030s. The service needs a DDG(X) to replace today’s Arleigh Burke-class destroyers; an SSN(X) to replace today’s Virginia-class attack submarines; and a Next Generation Air Dominance fighter to replace today’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornets. The programs were previously on track to enter design and construction in that order — the DDG(X) in fiscal 2028, SSN(X) in FY31 and NGAD sometime in the 2030s — but Del Toro said the service would not move on an artificial timeline, instead waiting until the technology is right. [...]

Del Toro cautioned against seeking a “transformational destroyer” design — akin to what the Navy did in the 1990s and early 2000s with the Zumwalt-class destroyer — and expressed his preference for something that more closely resembled the Burkes. [...] The Navy planned to buy two destroyers per year for the next several years, and it requested authority from Congress to sign a five-year contract with General Dynamics’ Bath Iron Works and HII’s Ingalls Shipbuilding for nine ships with an option for a 10th, spanning FY23-FY27.

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2022/1...r-program/

Schneemann

[Schneemann]

CNO Gilday: Next-Generation Air Dominance Will Come Ahead of DDG(X) Destroyer

ARLINGTON, Va. – First the fighter, then the destroyer and finally the submarine. That’s the order the Navy is set to introduce its next three major acquisition programs in the 2030s, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday said last week. The Navy’s next large surface warship program – now known as DDG(X) – might not be ready for a contract award until Fiscal Year 2030. [...]

“We are on a path right now with MQ-25 on our aircraft carriers to go IOC in 2025. That is a significant capability in terms of extending the lethality of the wing, freeing up jets that would typically be used – strike fighters – to refuel and to turn that back to their original missions,” Gilday said during the Surface Navy Association’s annual symposium. “That, for us, is the pathfinder for Next-Generation Air Dominance. And that is a phased program through the late 2020s, into the 2030s, that we need to deliver for the sixth-generation manned and unmanned aircraft.” As of last year, the next-generation destroyer program was set to buy the platform in Fiscal Year 2028 but will be pushed beyond the Future Years Defense Plan for the next budget into 2030.

Following his remarks, Gilday confirmed to reporters that NGAD would enter the fleet ahead of DDG(X) and the next-generation nuclear attack submarine, now known as SSN(X). He stressed that the development would happen simultaneously.

https://news.usni.org/2023/01/18/cno-gil...-destroyer

Schneemann

[Schneemann]

The US makes a move on its next generation DDG(X) destroyers

US Department of Defense awards design conception contract for new destroyers to Gibbs & Cox [...].

The US Department of Defense (DoD) has awarded the naval architecture firm Gibbs & Cox a $ 39.6m contract to exercise options for supporting the US Navy’s Future Surface Combatant Force. [...]

Gibbs & Cox’s work will contribute to the design and engineering of the ships which will become these principal large surface combatant ships the US Navy intends to have ready by 2030. What is listed as a “support contract” may well mean Gibbs & Cox are the main company behind the overall design of the ship itself, but all warships are designed with close cooperation and input with the USN. DDG(X) will almost certainly incorporate the combat system (sensors, radars, weapons, countermeasures, control computers etc.) of the new Flight III Burke destroyers onto a larger, sleeker hull, which helps simplify supply chains. Work will be performed in Washington, DC (60%); Arlington, Virginia (35%); and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (5%), and is expected to be completed by February 2024.

https://www.naval-technology.com/news/us...e-on-ddgx/

Schneemann

[Schneemann]

US Navy Opens DDG(X) Land Based Test Site

The U.S. Navy's Program Executive Office (PEO) Ships and Naval Surface Warfare Center, Philadelphia Division (NSWCPD) marked a major milestone with the new DDG(X) Land Based Test Site (LBTS) during a ribbon cutting ceremony on March 21, 2023. [...] The test site program will be used to support and improve reliability and capability, and will also assist with risk reduction efforts and technical oversight for DDG(X) critical systems.

“Today we mark the beginning of a unique test site that will be used to advance the design, reliability and capability of our Nation’s next-generation guided-missile destroyer, the DDG(X), the successor to the supremely successful DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class,” NSWCPD Commanding Officer Capt. Joseph Darcy said. “The DDG(X) Land Based Test Site is an evolutionary engineering test and evaluation asset that will help build the future: Our Nation’s newest and most advanced destroyers.”

https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/sea...test-site/

Schneemann

[Schneemann]

Eine kleine Wasserstandsmeldung:

Navy DDG(X) Next-Generation Destroyer Program [...]

The Navy’s DDG(X) program envisages procuring a class of next-generation guided-missile destroyers (DDGs) to replace the Navy’s Ticonderoga (CG-47) class Aegis cruisers and older Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class Aegis destroyers. The Navy wants to procure the first DDG(X) in FY2032. [...]

DDG(X) Program Program Designation and Lead Ship Procurement

In the program designation DDG(X), the X means the precise design for the ship has not yet been determined. As mentioned earlier, the Navy wants to procure the first DDG(X) in FY2032, though the date for procuring the first ship has changed before and could change again. Procurement of DDG-51s—the type of LSC currently being procured by the Navy—would end sometime after procurement of DDG(X)s begins. Navy officials have stated that they would like to see a three-year overlap between the start of DDG(X) procurement and the end of DDG-51 procurement.

Navy’s General Concept for the Ship [...]

Figure 1 shows a Navy rendering of a notional DDG(X) design. The Navy approved the DDG(X)’s top-level
requirements (i.e., its major required features) in December 2020. An October 2023 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on the Navy’s FY2024 30-year shipbuilding plan states that “the Navy has indicated that the initial [DDG(X)] design prescribes a displacement of 13,500 tons,” which would be about 39% greater than the 9,700-ton Flight III DDG-51 design. [...]

The October 2023 CBO report estimates the DDG(X)’s average procurement cost in constant FY2023 dollars at $3.2 billion to $3.5 billion—about 33% to 40% more than the Navy’s estimate (shown in the CBO report) of $2.4 billion to $2.5 billion. The CBO and Navy estimates are about 45% to 59%, and 9% to 14%, respectively, more than the DDG-51’s procurement cost of about $2.2 billion.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11679

Ich denke mal nicht, dass sie die 3,2 bis 3,5 Mrd. Dollar halten werden können, wenn das erste Schiff erst 2032 zuläuft.

Schneemann

[Nightwatch]

Naja, da der Betrag in constant dollars ausgewiesen ist wird das zwingend der Fall sein.

Man darf allerdings durchaus die Frage stellen, was dann an dem Kahn so viel teurer kommen soll als die Burke Flight III und die Berechnungen der Navy.
"Such an outcome, however, seems unlikely given the history of the Zumwalt class DDG-1000 guided missile destroyer.” ist da ein wenig dünn als Begründung, zumal sich die höhere Verdrängung primär aus dem bewusst hoch angesetzen Spielraum für zukünftigen Fähigkeitenaufwuchs ergibt und man bei Waffen- und Sensorsystemen auf weitgehend existierende Produkte setzt.

[Helios]

Man darf allerdings durchaus die Frage stellen, was dann an dem Kahn so viel teurer kommen soll als die Burke Flight III und die Berechnungen der Navy. "Such an outcome, however, seems unlikely given the history of the Zumwalt class DDG-1000 guided missile destroyer.” ist da ein wenig dünn als Begründung, zumal sich die höhere Verdrängung primär aus dem bewusst hoch angesetzen Spielraum für zukünftigen Fähigkeitenaufwuchs ergibt und man bei Waffen- und Sensorsystemen auf weitgehend existierende Produkte setzt.

Das CBO rechnet mit technologisch angepassten Tonnagepauschalen, das erzeugte bisher tatsächlich ganz gute Ergebnisse, sofern der Größen- und Leistungsaufwuchs auch mit Blick auf die Kampfsysteme beispielsweise parallel verläuft. Wenn das nicht der Fall ist, wie du hier ja feststellst, dann darf an den Zahlen zumindest Zweifel angemeldet werden. Umgekehrt haben sich die Berechnungen der Navy bei neuen Projekten wann mal tatsächlich bewahrheitet? In Anbetracht des Größenzuwachses und der bisher gezeigten Konzeptionierung halte ich 9-14% Mehrkosten gegenüber einer Burke III für überraschend wenig, schon rein für den Stahlbau und die Schiffsbetriebsinfrastruktur.

[Ottone]

Mit dem Entwurf geht die Navy zum Zwei-Insel-Prinzip über (oder nähert sich dem an), und eigentlich sieht das Konzept nach einem Nachfolger der Ticos aus, nicht der ABs. Nur die Seeausdauer dürfte (?) in der Größenordnung der Zerstörer verbleiben.

P.S.: Wegen des riesigen Radars sind die zwei RAM Starter in diesem Arrangement denkbar blöd positioniert.

[Helios]

Sowohl die Seeausdauer als auch der Fahrbereich soll gegenüber einer Burke deutlich anwachsen, gleiches gilt auch für die Redundanzen im Schadensfall (worauf das Design ja auch schon hinweist).

[Ottone]

Dann wird das wirklich ein Kreuzerentwurf im Sinne einer Nachfolge Ticonderoga. Es ist kein Wunder wenn die Kosten dementsprechend aussehen.