DDG(X) - Arleigh Burke Replacement

[sferrin]

How exactly did the Navy get "burned" by leaving hangers off the Burkes Flt I & II, understand helos not just for ASW, but they come at a large cost of ~30% of the weapons deck needed for the hanger and landing deck that could be used for additional VLS cells and if with an accompanying FFG-62 it will have a helo.

Basically, because not having hangars on the early DDG-51s meant they were limited in what you could do with them. No (or at least very limited) independent sailing, which accounts for a surprisingly large portion of a ship's peacetime or low-intensity operations. ASW limited to rearming/refueling someone else's helicopter.

And even in task force operations, you really need the flight deck (with or without the hangar). Helos are how stuff gets shuttled around -- spare parts, supplies, people, casualties, etc. VERTREP spots are not ideal, especially for personnel moves. Hoisting PAX on and off a ship is time-consuming, stressful, and dangerous. And I guarantee the squadron commander does not want to ride a horse collar to get from the DDG(X) to the carrier for conferences.

And let's look at the actual "cost" of the hangar and flight deck. You threw out a figure of 30%. But compare the Flight I and the Flight IIA -- very similar dimensions (essentially the same; there are no more frames in a Flight IIA) despite the hangar in the IIA. Deleting the hangar would not necessarily buy you more VLS, because the hangar is right on the main deck and the VLS has to extend below that, into volume that is being used for other things.

Deleting the flight deck as well still doesn't buy below-deck volume, though I suppose in theory you could shorten the hull a bit. But you still need some of the length for a VERTREP spot and you need most of the volume for whatever is already under the flight deck. And a shorter hull isn't always better -- longer hulls are easier to power and generally have better seakeeping.

Basically, flight decks and hangars are the exemplar for the widespread comment about ship design, that "steel is cheap and air is free." They don't really cost much to add and provide versatility even if you don't have enough helos to fill them up all the time.

And look at that flight deck for helicopters, drones, etc.:

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

How exactly did the Navy get "burned" by leaving hangers off the Burkes Flt I & II, understand helos not just for ASW, but they come at a large cost of ~30% of the weapons deck needed for the hanger and landing deck that could be used for additional VLS cells and if with an accompanying FFG-62 it will have a helo.

Basically, because not having hangars on the early DDG-51s meant they were limited in what you could do with them. No (or at least very limited) independent sailing, which accounts for a surprisingly large portion of a ship's peacetime or low-intensity operations. ASW limited to rearming/refueling someone else's helicopter.

And even in task force operations, you really need the flight deck (with or without the hangar). Helos are how stuff gets shuttled around -- spare parts, supplies, people, casualties, etc. VERTREP spots are not ideal, especially for personnel moves. Hoisting PAX on and off a ship is time-consuming, stressful, and dangerous. And I guarantee the squadron commander does not want to ride a horse collar to get from the DDG(X) to the carrier for conferences.

And let's look at the actual "cost" of the hangar and flight deck. You threw out a figure of 30%. But compare the Flight I and the Flight IIA -- very similar dimensions (essentially the same; there are no more frames in a Flight IIA) despite the hangar in the IIA. Deleting the hangar would not necessarily buy you more VLS, because the hangar is right on the main deck and the VLS has to extend below that, into volume that is being used for other things.

Deleting the flight deck as well still doesn't buy below-deck volume, though I suppose in theory you could shorten the hull a bit. But you still need some of the length for a VERTREP spot and you need most of the volume for whatever is already under the flight deck. And a shorter hull isn't always better -- longer hulls are easier to power and generally have better seakeeping.

Basically, flight decks and hangars are the exemplar for the widespread comment about ship design, that "steel is cheap and air is free." They don't really cost much to add and provide versatility even if you don't have enough helos to fill them up all the time.

And look at that flight deck for helicopters, drones, etc.:
View attachment 690951

Flight Deck could have been even larger:

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

USN's NGAD or F/A-XX will go ahead before the DDG(X) and then the SSN(X)

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

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...

news.usni.org

 

[aonestudio]

US Navy applies lessons from costly shipbuilding mistakes

The U.S. Navy appears to have learned its lesson after cramming too much technology onto ships, and rushing them into production.

apnews.com

Navy applies lessons from costly shipbuilding mistakes

Navy officials say they’re slowing down the design and purchase of the next-generation destroyer, dubbed DDG(X), to ensure new technology has matured.

www.navytimes.com

 

[Cordy]

DDG(X) looks very low priority for Navy, DoD/Navy FY24 PB shows total $26.9 billion requested for R&D, at $187 million DDG (X) R&D ranks only 15th of key major systems funded in war zone list.

Navy's Secretive F/A-XX Combat Jet Gets Big Funding In New Budget (Updated)

We break down the highlights from the Navy's new aviation budget, including the first declassified request for F/A-XX worth $1.5B.

www.thedrive.com

 

[Moose]

DDG(X) looks very low priority for Navy, DoD/Navy FY24 PB shows total $26.9 billion requested for R&D, at $187 million DDG (X) R&D ranks only 15th of key major systems funded in war zone list.

Navy's Secretive F/A-XX Combat Jet Gets Big Funding In New Budget (Updated)

We break down the highlights from the Navy's new aviation budget, including the first declassified request for F/A-XX worth $1.5B.

www.thedrive.com

It's a reflection of the faith , potentially excessive faith, put in the AB by Navy leadership. There's no stand-in for NGAD, and SSN(X) is tied closely to the SSBN work. But they believe they can cruise on AB for now.

 

[TomS]

It's a reflection of the faith , potentially excessive faith, put in the AB by Navy leadership. There's no stand-in for NGAD, and SSN(X) is tied closely to the SSBN work. But they believe they can cruise on AB for now.

At one level, it makes sense. The missiles that might require larger VLS, for example, are not really on the horizon yet (other than a small number of CPS, where the Zs will be supplemented with submarines in the mid-term)

At another level, if they had just bit the bullet and ordered a new DDG fifteen years ago, rather than the DDG-51 Restart, we wouldn't be having this problem. We'd be having a whole different problem, probably, but not this one.

 

[rainyZzone]

It's a reflection of the faith , potentially excessive faith, put in the AB by Navy leadership. There's no stand-in for NGAD, and SSN(X) is tied closely to the SSBN work. But they believe they can cruise on AB for now.

At one level, it makes sense. The missiles that might require larger VLS, for example, are not really on the horizon yet (other than a small number of CPS, where the Zs will be supplemented with submarines in the mid-term)

At another level, if they had just bit the bullet and ordered a new DDG fifteen years ago, rather than the DDG-51 Restart, we wouldn't be having this problem. We'd be having a whole different problem, probably, but not this one.

DDG(X) will have a very limited role in future conflicts and the ammunition inventory of naval surface ships is not optimistic either.
In short, the current combat value of DDG(X) cannot be used for plan B.
In a good direction, Navy leadership doesn't want to repeat the mistakes of DDG1000

 

[bobbymike]

DDG(X) $122M Land-Based Test Site Opens in Philadelphia - USNI News

Program Executive Officer Ships opened the land-based test facility for its next-generation guided-missile destroyer propulsion system in Philadelphia, the Navy announced this week. The site at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Philadelphia Division will host a $122 million full-scale complete...

news.usni.org

 

[Cordy]

DDG(X) $122M Land-Based Test Site Opens in Philadelphia - USNI News

Program Executive Officer Ships opened the land-based test facility for its next-generation guided-missile destroyer propulsion system in Philadelphia, the Navy announced this week. The site at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Philadelphia Division will host a $122 million full-scale complete...

news.usni.org

Speculation DDG(X) IPS based on the DRS motor chosen by EB and the U.S. Navy for the Columbia Electric Drive Propulsion system components (first production unit successfully completed its acceptance trials Aug '22) including the main propulsion electric motor but powered by GTGs and not nuclear and steam turbine generators as with Columbia SSBNs.

Further speculation its based on the DRS’ Permanent Magnet Motor originally designed for Zumwalt which provided 36.5 megawatts (approximately 50,000 horsepower) and over two million foot-pounds of torque in a dual-ring design, which was abandoned at the time in favor of a more conventional induction motor when the PMM motor failed to demonstrate that it was ready to be installed in time.

Open to question which GTG, GE LM2500 or RR MT30, MT30 more powerful

 

[aonestudio]

PEO Ships and NSWC Philadelphia Mark Major Milestone with the Next Generation Guided-Missi

Philadelphia - 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

www.navsea.navy.mil

 

[A_Random_Guy]

Lockheed Martin Developing New, Larger VLS for DDG(X) - Naval News

Lockheed Martin revealed to Naval News that the company is developing a brand new Vertical Launching System known as G-VLS for DDG(X).

www.navalnews.com

From the Article:

“But as part of being able to do a larger diameter missile, you could say take an eight-cell Mk.41 out, put what would be a four-cell with an exhaust on it. But those four cells would be able to handle quad packs of traditional missile canister-sized, or potentially larger missiles that will be coming in the future. So that’s part of one of the things we’re investing in that will help us maximize what you can do from your loadout perspectives and potentially even increase. Because if you think about it, with a four-cell quad pack that’s sixteen and more than the eight that were originally there, just because we changed the structure.”

A Mk.41 VLS container is about 25 inches across on the outside, meaning that each of the new VLS cells are probably about 50 inches across on the inside. Overall we're looking at a pretty massive increase in volume for the weapons.

Another interesting thing to note. A standard eight round Mk.41 launcher has a deck profile of roughly 82x125". To put it simply, there isn't room to put 4, 50x50" cells in that space as they are describing here. What's probably happened is the Mk.41 modules are to be mounted with extra space between them to accommodate the new G-VLS system.

 

[Forest Green]

Lockheed Martin Developing New, Larger VLS for DDG(X) - Naval News

Lockheed Martin revealed to Naval News that the company is developing a brand new Vertical Launching System known as G-VLS for DDG(X).

www.navalnews.com

From the Article:

“But as part of being able to do a larger diameter missile, you could say take an eight-cell Mk.41 out, put what would be a four-cell with an exhaust on it. But those four cells would be able to handle quad packs of traditional missile canister-sized, or potentially larger missiles that will be coming in the future. So that’s part of one of the things we’re investing in that will help us maximize what you can do from your loadout perspectives and potentially even increase. Because if you think about it, with a four-cell quad pack that’s sixteen and more than the eight that were originally there, just because we changed the structure.”

A Mk.41 VLS container is about 25 inches across on the outside, meaning that each of the new VLS cells are probably about 50 inches across on the inside. Overall we're looking at a pretty massive increase in volume for the weapons.

Another interesting thing to note. A standard eight round Mk.41 launcher has a deck profile of roughly 82x125". To put it simply, there isn't room to put 4, 50x50" cells in that space as they are describing here. What's probably happened is the Mk.41 modules are to be mounted with extra space between them to accommodate the new G-VLS system.

I wonder if it'll be similar to the KVLS-II?

 

[A_Random_Guy]

Lockheed Martin Developing New, Larger VLS for DDG(X) - Naval News

Lockheed Martin revealed to Naval News that the company is developing a brand new Vertical Launching System known as G-VLS for DDG(X).

www.navalnews.com

From the Article:

“But as part of being able to do a larger diameter missile, you could say take an eight-cell Mk.41 out, put what would be a four-cell with an exhaust on it. But those four cells would be able to handle quad packs of traditional missile canister-sized, or potentially larger missiles that will be coming in the future. So that’s part of one of the things we’re investing in that will help us maximize what you can do from your loadout perspectives and potentially even increase. Because if you think about it, with a four-cell quad pack that’s sixteen and more than the eight that were originally there, just because we changed the structure.”

A Mk.41 VLS container is about 25 inches across on the outside, meaning that each of the new VLS cells are probably about 50 inches across on the inside. Overall we're looking at a pretty massive increase in volume for the weapons.

Another interesting thing to note. A standard eight round Mk.41 launcher has a deck profile of roughly 82x125". To put it simply, there isn't room to put 4, 50x50" cells in that space as they are describing here. What's probably happened is the Mk.41 modules are to be mounted with extra space between them to accommodate the new G-VLS system.

I wonder if it'll be similar to the KVLS-II?

Maybe, but we’re getting close to the size of a Polaris Missile in terms of space if the report is to be believed.

My personal guess is two pairs of cells with a large space between the two for exhaust.

 

[Forest Green]

Maybe, but we’re getting close to the size of a Polaris Missile in terms of space if the report is to be believed.

My personal guess is two pairs of cells with a large space between the two for exhaust.

Note that the dimensions in the image are for a quad-pack module, not a single cell, which is likely 1.0-1.1m square x 9.8m deep internally, i.e. enough for LRHW.

 

[uk 75]

The lessons of previous launch systems in the USN and RN is that the space available and adaptability of the launcher should be as big as possible.
The Spruances were much maligned initially for having a few weapons on a big hull. How right it was to go for a big hull was shown when Spruance saved the AEGIS system as the Ticonderoga/Bunker Hill.
Both the USN and RN need to go for the biggest hull and most powerful powerplant possible.

 

[bobbymike]

Navy Lays Groundwork for Larger, More Lethal Next-Gen Destroyer

Navy Lays Groundwork for Larger, More Lethal Next-Gen Destroyer

www.nationaldefensemagazine.org

 

[sferrin]

The lessons of previous launch systems in the USN and RN is that the space available and adaptability of the launcher should be as big as possible.
The Spruances were much maligned initially for having a few weapons on a big hull. How right it was to go for a big hull was shown when Spruance saved the AEGIS system as the Ticonderoga/Bunker Hill.
Both the USN and RN need to go for the biggest hull and most powerful powerplant possible.

If only there were one available .

 

[Kat Tsun]

The USN divested itself of its ability to produce new surface warships in the 1990's, yes, or rather its ability to produce novel hullforms and designs. Zumwalt was designed immediately prior, and following, the massive downsizing of the US RDTE capacities in the mid-1990's under the George Bush administration. It's amazing it took almost 20 years to get to the seas (they were very high technology ships) but I guess that's why Burke production kept going and Zumwalt's weird manufacturing base died: they simply went too far too fast.

I guess they could ask Gibbs & Cox or Austal to produce a 12,000 ton destroyer design but it wouldn't be very good.

It'll be neat to see how long it'll take them to produce the DDG(X) which sounds like little more than an American Maya or Sejong the Great. Japan was able to transition within 10 years from producing a ~9,000 ton Burke-sized ship to the 12,000 ton Maya, so I suppose America will take closer to 20 at best.

 

[Forest Green]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1689012809051394048

View: https://twitter.com/LMNews/status/1689012809051394048?s=20

 

[BlackBat242]

The USN divested itself of its ability to produce new surface warships in the 1990's, yes, or rather its ability to produce novel hullforms and designs. Zumwalt was designed immediately prior, and following, the massive downsizing of the US RDTE capacities in the mid-1990's under the George Bush administration.

Your sense of time needs work.

Pres. George H. W. Bush (41) 1989 - 1992.
Pres. George W. Bush (43) 2001 - 2008.

The mid-1990s was pure Pres. William Jefferson Clinton (42) 1993 - 2000.

 

[kqcke for you]

So G-VLS has 4 cells which are at the maximum possible diameter in the width of the MK.41? Then i guess the exhaust doesn't take the whole length of a MK.41 Modul. Probaly as high as a MK.57 or even KVLS-II?

 

[Cordy]

Washington's Hudson Institute's Bryan Clark in article on eve of the Surface Navy Association’s annual conference, attacks Navy's plan for the costly DDG(X), a few quotes

The surface fleet is shrinking, which the Navy intends to arrest in the mid-2030s through continued DDG and FFG production combined with a pause in retirements. But this plan faces multiple challenges.

The first is construction costs. Starting in 2032, the Navy wants to buy the new DDG(X), estimated to cost about $3.3 billion compared to $2.1 billion for today’s Arleigh Burkes. Navy leaders argue the 40 percent larger DDG(X) is needed to carry the lasers, long-range hypersonic missiles, and improved sensors needed to fight China.

Before devoting more than half its amphibious ship and surface combatant funding each year to buy a single DDG(X) the Navy should reconsider if the surface fleet’s best use is fighting China on day one of a war over Taiwan. Submarines, bombers, and unmanned systems might be better tools for those initial engagements.

With a less-ambitious DDG(X), the Navy might be able to continue buying two destroyers and two frigates each year — or grow the fleet faster by buying a single DDG(X) and four or more FFGs

As mentioned on the FFG(X) thread the Navy's recent force structure study called for a 381 ship fleet for a larger, more capable, more distributed naval force with even greater importance on small combatants and the costly DDG(X) runs totally contary to the need for a larger fleet.


https://breakingdefense.com/2024/01...design-for-competition-rethink-fleet-make-up/

 

[Josh_TN]

What drives the DDGX costs vice Burks? Platform size? Power production? Hypersonic launch tubes? I personally think escort ships are the wrong place for hypersonic weapons-put those on dedicated offense platforms if necessary, and ideally make them TEU launchers that can be fired from an auxiliary. Air launched, anir breathing weapons are going to be vastly cheaper anyway and I don’t see the IRCPS inventory ever being large. So I can see cutting that capability. But having a large power reserve and very large long ranged AMD type radar will have to a core design feature; the Burke design is at its limit.

 

[TomS]

What drives the DDGX costs vice Burks? Platform size? Power production? Hypersonic launch tubes? I personally think escort ships are the wrong place for hypersonic weapons-put those on dedicated offense platforms if necessary, and ideally make them TEU launchers that can be fired from an auxiliary. Air launched, anir breathing weapons are going to be vastly cheaper anyway and I don’t see the IRCPS inventory ever being large. So I can see cutting that capability. But having a large power reserve and very large long ranged AMD type radar will have to a core design feature; the Burke design is at its limit.

Bigger AMDRs, EW advances, power reserves for directed energy weapons, more hull steel for growth margins and habitability, improved Arctic seakeeping (maybe including some ice hardening?)

The destroyer payload module isn't part of the baseline design, AFAICT. So it might be added later for any number of things -- hypersonic, even bigger BMD missiles, other kinds of payloads, etc.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Your sense of time needs work.

Pres. George H. W. Bush (41) 1989 - 1992.
Pres. George W. Bush (43) 2001 - 2008.

The mid-1990s was pure Pres. William Jefferson Clinton (42) 1993 - 2000.

Yeah, sorry.

I should have said "the effects of the Bush-era budget cuts weren't appreciated until the late 1990's" perhaps. Even with Clinton's reversals of various program cancellations under Cheney's helm of DOD, and the start of SC-21 in 1994, a lot of capabilities were lost in the two preceding and subsequent presidencies of Clinton and cemented with the Burke production restart.

In hindsight, all of SC-21 was an unfortunate misstep, and could have been avoided by simply making a bigger Burke perhaps. We're getting that, however slowly, even if the Japanese and Koreans have had them for a while now.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Definitely think DD-21 would have been preferable to a bigger Burke.

Maybe a bigger Flight III Burke or CGBL, if equipped with IEP, would have offered similar margins viz-a-vis reserve topweight and power generation capacity.

 

[Scott Kenny]

What also partially drove my thinking was the report by InsideDefense where it appears Navy planning to replace the MH-60R/S with the folded wing naval version of the Valor V-280 and no doubt will design the DDG(X) to operate, it will not be a cheap option and as said will take up a lot of space on the weapons deck.
https://insidedefense.com/insider/navy-writing-classified-fvl-report-be-delivered-cape-early-next-year#:~:text=Navy writing classified FVL report to be delivered to CAPE early next year,-By Audrey Decker&text=The Navy is working on,has asked for industry input.

Highly unlikely that the Navy will buy Valors. The Marines want to, they'll probably jump in on the tail end of the Army's buy to finally get their Osprey Escorts.

Why not the Navy? Because the Valors are good everywhere but in the hover, and Navy missions are basically all spent at the hover. Hovering to dip a sonar. Hovering for search and rescue. Hovering to deliver supplies.

I'd honestly expect the Navy's next generation helicopter to be an "MH-60Y" with the T901 engines from the Army FARA recon chopper shoved in it. Like how they stuffed the Blackhawk engines into the UH-1Y.

 

[CV12Hornet]

In hindsight, all of SC-21 was an unfortunate misstep, and could have been avoided by simply making a bigger Burke perhaps. We're getting that, however slowly, even if the Japanese and Koreans have had them for a while now.

A bigger Burke was never in the cards, unfortunately. It didn't fit the threat environment DD-21 was conceived in, nor the ships they needed to replace - at the time the Burkes were brand new.

 

[Kat Tsun]

A bigger Burke was never in the cards, unfortunately. It didn't fit the threat environment DD-21 was conceived in, nor the ships they needed to replace - at the time the Burkes were brand new.

Well, Friedman in U.S. Destroyers mentions SC-21 came about as a internal dispute of what a XXI ship looked like within the Navy, tbf.

One group wanted to build what was essentially a bigger Burke, but with radar reduction features borrowed from La Fayette (FMLAC comes to mind). The other wanted to build a fully stealthed ship using more novel phased arrays instead of existing systems in reduced RCS mounts. The latter group won.

Definitely think DD-21 would have been preferable to a bigger Burke.

DD-21 was never in the cards, given the USN only built three, and they never worked properly. SC-21, and its derivatives, were simply too far beyond the state-of-the-art for the financial and technological environment of the 1990's and 2000's. The present DDG(X) is the "big Burke" in that context.

It will probably take a long time to get it, but G&C's support could help regenerate USN's internal ship design capacities, which is good.

 

[Moose]

Highly unlikely that the Navy will buy Valors. The Marines want to, they'll probably jump in on the tail end of the Army's buy to finally get their Osprey Escorts.

Why not the Navy? Because the Valors are good everywhere but in the hover, and Navy missions are basically all spent at the hover. Hovering to dip a sonar. Hovering for search and rescue. Hovering to deliver supplies.

I'd honestly expect the Navy's next generation helicopter to be an "MH-60Y" with the T901 engines from the Army FARA recon chopper shoved in it. Like how they stuffed the Blackhawk engines into the UH-1Y.

The V-280 demonstrator showed better hover characteristics than Osprey, and Osprey has already done some VERTREP development. It's fair to say the current missions favor a conventional platform, but a decision to adopt a tiltrotor would likely be accompanied with a move to incorporate more missions taking advantage of its capabilities.

T901 is designed for the Blackhawk, no cramming needed.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The V-280 demonstrator showed better hover characteristics than Osprey, and Osprey has already done some VERTREP development. It's fair to say the current missions favor a conventional platform, but a decision to adopt a tiltrotor would likely be accompanied with a move to incorporate more missions taking advantage of its capabilities.

Sure, they can hover.

But you're paying a lot of money for capabilities the Navy isn't generally using or even needing for your DDG/FFG shipboard aircraft.

That's why I think the next Navy Helicopter will be a new build Seahawk with T901s in it, nothing particularly fancy unless they add a 5th rotor blade to it (easy way is recycling the design of the H3 rotor head). Enough horsepower to have one airframe do both MH-60R and -S jobs.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

DD-21 was never in the cards, given the USN only built three, and they never worked properly. SC-21, and its derivatives, were simply too far beyond the state-of-the-art for the financial and technological environment of the 1990's and 2000's.

The ships are sailing now, they seem technically feasible. DD-21 was much more future-proofed than a Burke-derived design, with the 140MW of power in the original design, reduced to 78MW in DD(X)/DDG-1000/Zumwalt enabled by IEP (in both cases albeit only fully usable at cost of propulsive power), still much better than the 12MW of the Flight III Burke, Mk 57s have greater volume for more future missiles, plus separate X- and S-Band arrays for missile guidance, horizon search and volume search. The greater signature reduction also makes soft-kill systems more effective.

By and large the technologies the ships completed with work, and those that haven't made it onto the ships are on others in the US Navy (the combined SPY-3 and -4 on Gerald R. Ford) or similar technologies have been deployed on ships in other navies (phased array SATCOMs).

The present DDG(X) is the "big Burke" in that context.

DDG(X) has barely been designed yet, we do not know what it will look like. It uses IEP, it will have more in common with Zumwalt in that respect.

 

[TomS]

DDG(X) has barely been designed yet, we do not know what it will look like. It uses IEP, it will have more in common with Zumwalt in that respect.

Indeed, despite the one placeholder drawing, it seems possible that DDG(X) is going to look a lot more like the Zumwalts that they have admitted. If the 2022 tow-tank model that has been shown is representative of current thinking, it's basically a hybrid of a more or less conventional bow with a tumblehome hull and monolithic superstructure like DDG-1000. I suspect a straight repeat of the Zumwalt hullform is out due to the politics of selling that to Congress.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Indeed, despite the one placeholder drawing, it seems possible that DDG(X) is going to look a lot more like the Zumwalts that they have admitted. If the 2022 tow-tank model that has been shown is representative of current thinking, it's basically a hybrid of a more or less conventional bow with a tumblehome hull and monolithic superstructure like DDG-1000. I suspect a straight repeat of the Zumwalt hullform is out due to the politics of selling that to Congress.

So, the bow looks something like that of the LCS-2 class?

 

[TomS]

So, the bow looks something like that of the LCS-2 class?

A bit, at least in that model. No idea if that's actually representative, of course.

 

[Firefinder]

The USN has a lot of noval bow designs literally floating around at the moment.

Seakeeping is likely going to be a Major consideration for constant radar ops and crew comfort.

And apparently the two best seakeepers of the fleet, for their size, are the Independences and Zumwalts.

So it not surprising that they are testing out a combination of the two.

 

[TomS]

.

And apparently the two best seakeepers of the fleet, for their size, are the Independences and Zumwalts.

So it not surprising that they are testing out a combination of the two.

I love that after all the naysaying about the Zumwalt hullform, it turns out to actually works at least as well as the models predicted if not better. If I had a dollar for every social media post and news article insisting that the Zs would roll over in a mild breeze, I'd be retired by now.

 

[Moose]

https://news.usni.org/2024/01/10/navy-wants-3-year-overlap-between-arleigh-burkes-and-ddgx-considering-propulsion-system

 

[Dilandu]

Considering the modern warfare lessons, like Red Sea, anti-drone lasers on warships became "must have" already.