DDG(X) - Arleigh Burke Replacement

Hm. Seems that USN learned the lessons from its previous "let's stop the old type production, since new type would cer-ta-in-ly be ready just next year" mistakes. And now follow the PLAN philosophy "we won't stop the old type production until we are fully satisfied with new type performance".
That's just the old Soviet model. Keep the old thing in production until the new thing is in full production. Makes more sense to me, really, whether it be ships, planes, tanks, or underwear. F-22 and C-17 would still be in production if the West also did that. Same for all the tanks that are getting upgrades instead of new builds.
 
That's just the old Soviet model. Keep the old thing in production until the new thing is in full production. Makes more sense to me, really, whether it be ships, planes, tanks, or underwear. F-22 and C-17 would still be in production if the West also did that. Same for all the tanks that are getting upgrades instead of new builds.
Not the C-17 - the Air Force, for once, actually got all the C-17s it asked for.
 
Sadly true. But 500kW lasers aren't quite here yet. At least this only needs 500kW pulse lasers and not the 25MW like I had been expecting based on the old MIRACL continuous-wave laser.
I’m not a DEW expert but I remember MIRACL from the 80s. With such a power difference, I’m assuming pulse lasers even with much less power are more effective?
 
I’m not a DEW expert but I remember MIRACL from the 80s. With such a power difference, I’m assuming pulse lasers even with much less power are more effective?

MIRCL's main drawback is that it was a chemical laser that required a huge amount of infrastructure, a lot of consumable and volatile materials, and very limited light times. Completely unsuitable for even a large ship, though AFAIK it still is operational and might have its own uses. The goal is to make free electron lasers that don't require any consumables in similar power ranges such that multiple shots are possible with just more electricity and adequate cooling (the latter is a very non trivial consideration). That has been a very uphill technology battle that is only now beginning to bear fruit.
 
Not the C-17 - the Air Force, for once, actually got all the C-17s it asked for.

The program kept on going for allies for a few dozen more airframes, but ultimately the requirement was met and there was no way to keep the line open. I see them fairly often at my girlfriend's place out of a near by reserve base; it is amazing to watch them just hang in the air with their extreme size and slow stall speed. The sound of those huge turbofans is also unique; I can single them out from other commercial traffic just lying in bed. They do touch and goes at the local regional airport which is also an ANG reserve base for F-15s (those are loud as hell and there is no mistaking them for anything but).
 
Not the C-17 - the Air Force, for once, actually got all the C-17s it asked for.
They then shut down the production line, and a few years later wanted more only, unlike reassurances to Congress by Boeing and the GAO, not only was there no way to reopen the line, the building had been sold off.

Which leaves not just the US but everyone in the west without access to a strategic airlifter.
 
I’m not a DEW expert but I remember MIRACL from the 80s. With such a power difference, I’m assuming pulse lasers even with much less power are more effective?
Yes, though I don't exactly understand the mechanics behind it. IIRC, the simple version I got is that a continuous laser is just dumping heat into the target, while a pulsed laser manages to drill a hole.
 
Slightly different interpretation

At the SNA Rear Adm. Fred Pyle, director of the Navy's Surface Warfare Division, N96, on the DDG(X) estimated 13,500t $3.4billion, re the propulsion system said that though early discussions indicated the new warship would have an integrated power system similar to the Zumwalt of gas turbines drives a complex electrical grid that powers electric motors has an excess margin for new sensors and DE weapons, but revealed the propulsion system for the new destroyer is still not as yet set.

Assuming IPS build estimates for the DDG(X) looking to be a very expensive and time consuming to build based on the Navy's past actual experience with Zumwalts IEP, another factor in the thinking is the view he expressed to reporters saying the Navy and industry need to be more 'intellectually honest' when discussing laser weapon systems, we have a tendency to over promise and under deliver, speaking plainly and honestly about developing that tech, “It’s hard,” he added.

PS DDG(X) is 25% smaller than the 17,000t Japanese ASEV and $2.1 billion more expensive on current figures.

https://news.usni.org/2024/01/10/na...burkes-and-ddgx-considering-propulsion-system

 
Range and power requirements alone will force the adoption of IEP. This is a ship that will serve into the 2080s, it will need significant margins in terms of topweight, volume and power generation for later life additions.
 
Range and power requirements alone will force the adoption of IEP. This is a ship that will serve into the 2080s, it will need significant margins in terms of topweight, volume and power generation for later life additions.
Not if priority is range and power requirements you need look no farther than diesels and diesel generators e.g. Danish Iver Huitfeldt class frigates 9,000 nm, whereas the Zumwalt IEP have seen quoted at 6,000 nm and the Burke GTs 4,400 nm
 
In 1991 the US had several types of cruiser and destroyers. It now has only the Bunker Hill CG and Burke DG in service. Other Western nations make do with a single class of DG. Is it time for the US to do the same?
 
In 1991 the US had several types of cruiser and destroyers. It now has only the Bunker Hill CG and Burke DG in service. Other Western nations make do with a single class of DG. Is it time for the US to do the same?
No.
 
Not if priority is range and power requirements you need look no farther than diesels and diesel generators e.g. Danish Iver Huitfeldt class frigates 9,000 nm, whereas the Zumwalt IEP have seen quoted at 6,000 nm and the Burke GTs 4,400 nm
Diesels are hard to silence, COGAG combined with IEP seems to be the best approach for both minimising acoustic signature whilst maximising range, power generation, and survivability by positioning GTGs throughout the ship.
 
In 1991 the US had several types of cruiser and destroyers. It now has only the Bunker Hill CG and Burke DG in service. Other Western nations make do with a single class of DG. Is it time for the US to do the same?

No. The US has an AMD requirement other navies don’t have and it needs a larger ship class to house the emitters, power, and cooling necessary. That said, I expect the FFGX and similar sized/capable ships to form the backbone of the fleet by 2040, with DDGX bought in only cruiser like numbers. The restart/flt3 Burkes will carry on but there will not be a one for one replacement of the older ships.
 
Yes, though I don't exactly understand the mechanics behind it. IIRC, the simple version I got is that a continuous laser is just dumping heat into the target, while a pulsed laser manages to drill a hole.
A continuous-beam laser vaporizes some of the target, but that creates a cloud of vaporized material between the laser and the target, weakening the laser beam or completely blocking it from reaching the target.

Only if there is a decent cross-breeze to remove the vaporized material (or if the target is moving) does the CW-beam work well.

A pulsed laser gives time for the vaporized material to clear before the next pulse hits. This not only delivers a higher % of the laser power to the target, it also causes thousands of rapid shockwaves in the target material due to all the sudden repeated vaporizations - the CW-beam only delivers the initial shock pulse.

Yes... the pulsed laser light can cause brittle/fatigue stresses and failures in the target material.
 
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.
Yeah uh, the entire point of SC-21 was not to use a Burke. Multiple studies confirmed that a land-attack Burke would not of had the same effect as a purpose-built ship. Not to mention the Burkes lack the growth margin needed for half the equipment. I'm not sure what using a Burke would accomplish either, technological development would stagnate for a good 20 years.
 
A continuous-beam laser vaporizes some of the target, but that creates a cloud of vaporized material between the laser and the target, weakening the laser beam or completely blocking it from reaching the target.

Only if there is a decent cross-breeze to remove the vaporized material (or if the target is moving) does the CW-beam work well.

A pulsed laser gives time for the vaporized material to clear before the next pulse hits. This not only delivers a higher % of the laser power to the target, it also causes thousands of rapid shockwaves in the target material due to all the sudden repeated vaporizations - the CW-beam only delivers the initial shock pulse.

Yes... the pulsed laser light can cause brittle/fatigue stresses and failures in the target material.
One would assume a flying target (or hovering rotorcraft) would have a bit of cross-breeze to clear vaporized material.
 
One would assume a flying target (or hovering rotorcraft) would have a bit of cross-breeze to clear vaporized material.
That depends alot on the physics and target profile.

Like a crossing shot you will get a decent breeze but a head on tail on shots you likely get a decent amount STAYing in the beam path. And well head on attack is often use as the standard attack profile for all ADA type weapons.

Then you have to wonder how much power you lose from the Vaporize Material from the upstream side of the beam getting blown into it.


Likely a bout of In Theory this is right.

But when you add in the forty two dozen different variables like the above upstream blow in.

Then you have the mechanical stress from the multiple shock waves. Likely acts like a force multiplier. So instead of just doing Heat damage you also doing Kinetic as well, making defense even harder. Would not surprise me if you could set up a resonator deal to have the target shake itself apart for a 1, 2, 3, hit combo.
 
I wonder if a high powered microwave emitter that attacks the guidance electronics would not be more power efficient and easier to achieve in the here and now?
 
Not if priority is range and power requirements you need look no farther than diesels and diesel generators e.g. Danish Iver Huitfeldt class frigates 9,000 nm, whereas the Zumwalt IEP have seen quoted at 6,000 nm and the Burke GTs 4,400 nm
You know that the Zumwalts can just shut down some of their turbines in order to go farther, assuming that the electrical power isn't necessary, right?

Besides, these will be operating as the AAW flagship of a carrier group first, so will have an oiler within arm's reach at all times.
 
At least part of increasing endurance is simply having a larger ship with more fuel. One the major drivers in the increase in size in US Warship Designs (aside from volume for missiles and electronics like NTDS) was the requirement to have an endurance of 8000nm at 20 knots.
 
A continuous-beam laser vaporizes some of the target, but that creates a cloud of vaporized material between the laser and the target, weakening the laser beam or completely blocking it from reaching the target.

Only if there is a decent cross-breeze to remove the vaporized material (or if the target is moving) does the CW-beam work well.

A pulsed laser gives time for the vaporized material to clear before the next pulse hits. This not only delivers a higher % of the laser power to the target, it also causes thousands of rapid shockwaves in the target material due to all the sudden repeated vaporizations - the CW-beam only delivers the initial shock pulse.

Yes... the pulsed laser light can cause brittle/fatigue stresses and failures in the target material.
Thank you!
 
That depends alot on the physics and target profile.

Like a crossing shot you will get a decent breeze but a head on tail on shots you likely get a decent amount STAYing in the beam path.
Not a head on. Any material will be quickly behind it. Maybe a tail-on, assuming it's exactly tail on.
 
You know that the Zumwalts can just shut down some of their turbines in order to go farther, assuming that the electrical power isn't necessary, right?

Besides, these will be operating as the AAW flagship of a carrier group first, so will have an oiler within arm's reach at all times.
As far as know Navy has never disclosed Zumwalt's max range and at what cruising peed and so not hopeful that it can go much farther than 6000 nm (4000 nm operational range) have seen quoted, oilers will be the prime target for enemy subs etc easy targets as Navy unlikely to have enough frigates to defend them in transit, no doubt one reason why Navy pushing for a large increase in numbers of frigates.
 
Endurance was advertised as one of the advantages of the DD-21 hullform. I'd not be surprised if they can cruise a lot farther than the usual standard.
 
technological development would stagnate for a good 20 years.

Isn't that exactly what happened? Making a minor incremental improvement instead of a mostly vaporware ship would have been good.

Whether DDG(X) turns out to be a modified DDG-1000 or not is an open question, though, and that's fair enough if it turns out to have good underwater performance. Various European and Asian navies have had much better success with relatively conventional ship designs that aren't as optimized towards low RCS is more my point.

The close-ish cooperation of the RN and USN might hopefully reflect well on IEP in American service, fingers crossed.
 
A continuous-beam laser vaporizes some of the target, but that creates a cloud of vaporized material between the laser and the target, weakening the laser beam or completely blocking it from reaching the target.

Only if there is a decent cross-breeze to remove the vaporized material (or if the target is moving) does the CW-beam work well.

A pulsed laser gives time for the vaporized material to clear before the next pulse hits. This not only delivers a higher % of the laser power to the target, it also causes thousands of rapid shockwaves in the target material due to all the sudden repeated vaporizations - the CW-beam only delivers the initial shock pulse.

Yes... the pulsed laser light can cause brittle/fatigue stresses and failures in the target material.
Also higher instantaneous power makes mirrors stop working as a defensive measure.

Firstly, because no mirror is 100% reflective, and if you deliver a high enough power on the target, the fraction that goes through can damage the mirror, allowing followup energy to do more damage.

Secondly, once you get to the mid-TW range, mirrors stop working at all. Because the way reflection works at the atomic level is that incoming wave excites electrons, which fall back to their ground state, re-emitting the same wave. But this process takes time. Once the incoming wave is powerful enough, the surface electrons get re-energized fast enough that they don't have time to emit before that and they get stripped away. Ionization is normally a less efficient way of doing damage than vaporization (takes more energy for removing the same material, and ionized material is conductive and so opaque to light), but it removes all ways of defending with a surface finish.
 
You know that the Zumwalts can just shut down some of their turbines in order to go farther, assuming that the electrical power isn't necessary, right?

Besides, these will be operating as the AAW flagship of a carrier group first, so will have an oiler within arm's reach at all times.
You know that whenever any ship design has its "max range" listed, it is always listed at the most economical propulsion profile? For example, the 4,400NM/8,100km range quoted for the Burkes is not the range for "max speed" of 30+ knots/56KPH, but the range when it limits its speed to 20 knots/37KPH.

This is also seen in the range profile for the old Spruance ships: 6,000nm/11,000km @ 20 knots/37KPH, but only 3,300nm/6,100km @ 30 knots/56KPH (with a max speed of 32.5 knots/60.2KPH)...which happens to be also the official range profile for the Tico CGs. By the same token, if you see range figures given for a ship with CODOG, CODAG, COGOG, or COGAG propulsion, if it even lists a range figure it usually will just list the diesel-only or the cruise gas turbine-only range...& then you see a big difference in the range with the "sprint" gas turbines. Take, for example, the Type 21/Amazon FFGs built by the UK:
  • COGOG: 2 Tyne [RM1] cruise turbines (8,500shp total), 2 Olympus TM3 sprint turbines (50,000shp total)
  • Max speed: 18 knots/33KPH on Tynes, 32-37 knots/59-68.5KPH on Olympus
  • Range: 4,000nm/7,400km @ 17 knots/31KPH or 3,500nm/6,500km @ 18 knots/33KPH (Tynes); 1,200nm/2,200km @ 30 knots/56KPH (Olympus)
So...no...turning off 1 or more of the gas turbines on a Zumwalt or Burke, or any future ship for that matter, is not going to magically increase its official range figures, because those range figures already have that baked into the calculations. There are only certain ways to get a range increase out of an existing ship design:
  1. Replace existing equipment in the design with larger fuel tanks, assuming you replace the equipment ton-for-ton with more fuel.
  2. Install new propulsion plants in them that are either more fuel-efficient at the SHP needed to match the listed speed, or are able to put out more HP for the same amount of gross fuel consumed per hour (the former meaning that you're burning less fuel to get the same speed, thus making your tanks last longer; the latter meaning that your vessel is moving faster per hour while burning the same amount of fuel, so you can travel farther per unit of fuel consumed), which either involves completely new engines or up-rated & upgraded versions of the existing engines
  3. Combination of #1 & #2
 
I doubt the Zumwalt hullform will be reused, and I doubt DDG(X) will be based off DDG-1000. There’s virtually no overlap between the CONOPS of either vessel, and thus the requirements and equipment are completely different.

Zumwalts hull in particular was designed around the need for stealth, which is pretty useless when you’re blasting 4x 18-foot S-Band radars on every frequency known to god. Not to mention the tooling for that Zumwalt has already been destroyed, and it’s very volume limited, so there’s no point recreating it for a suboptimal result.

Won’t be surprised if they reuse TSCE, the automation stuff, and the Zumwalt’s powerplant though. All that R&D work is already done at this point.

Anyone know why they’re not running DDG(X) as a design competition? Sounds like Gibbs and Cox is the sole company working on the design.
 
I doubt the Zumwalt hullform will be reused, and I doubt DDG(X) will be based off DDG-1000. There’s virtually no overlap between the CONOPS of either vessel, and thus the requirements and equipment are completely different.

Zumwalts hull in particular was designed around the need for stealth, which is pretty useless when you’re blasting 4x 18-foot S-Band radars on every frequency known to god. Not to mention the tooling for that Zumwalt has already been destroyed, and it’s very volume limited, so there’s no point recreating it for a suboptimal result.
Yes, the Zumwalts were intended to go play in the littorals and have little/no AA capabilities.

The hull shape itself seems to be much better in rough seas than the traditional hulls, though, since they sent one up to the Bering Sea for the true test of evil waters and all the crews thought it was Sea State 4 instead of 6+.

So I would necessarily be surprised if they used the Zumwalt hull shape or similar, though it looks like the test tank dummies have a conventional bow instead of wave-piercing that turns back into a stealthy shape as the lines go aft.


Won’t be surprised if they reuse TSCE, the automation stuff, and the Zumwalt’s powerplant though. All that R&D work is already done at this point.
Agree on automation and powerplant.

I don't think TSCE plays nice with AEGIS, though. So unless someone writes a virtual AEGIS FCS that works in TSCE, TSCE is likely dead. Maybe they'll retry the concept in a decade or two.


Anyone know why they’re not running DDG(X) as a design competition? Sounds like Gibbs and Cox is the sole company working on the design.
Well, USN proper doesn't know how to design ships anymore.

And what other design firms are in the US that might be able to design a DDG?
 
And what other design firms are in the US that might be able to design a DDG?

Gibbs & Cox comes to mind immediately, it's just that without a robust Government engineering house, there's less capacity to push back when the contractor starts going into "sale mode" instead of "engineer mode". The Army saw foremost this with the Future Combat Systems, while the Air Force has wrangled with Lockheed over F-35 for actual decades, and broadly are results of 1990's consolidation and closure of Government labs, mostly.

The USN had its own moment with the CVN-78: the elevators, EMALS, and arresting gear.

The original plan was more gradual: CVN-77 would have had a composite island like CVN-78 got, while CVN-78 would have received a single EMALS on the waist, IIRC. General Atomics figured because they had some limited experience in maglevs, the control issues of a conventional elevator wouldn't be a big deal, and the USN kind of got browbeaten between the contractors and Congress into stuffing CVN-78 with hi-tech gizmos instead of a gradual introduction from Ronald Reagan through to CVN-79 or CVN-80.

So CVN-78 is a big lemon, which is not a huge deal, just unfortunate. The Nimitz wasn't a big lemon like the Forrestal or Enterprise after all.

DDG(X) seems fairly sedate as far as "futuristic warship designs" go. It's taking something similar to a Burke and bringing it up to "modern" standards like the UK Royal Navy has. The most difficult element will likely be the IEP. The radar and combat system already work, so they aren't hard, and the Navy has some IEP experience with the Zumwalt. The Navy also likely has staff who worked on Zumwalt too, and hopefully they're not as forgetful as some of the Crusader guys, but they're probably old.

It may yet avoid the issues of IEP that Type 45s had, though those were so peculiar to the WR-21 intercooler I'm not sure they can be replicated, so they're probably safe. The Navy uses Linux too, so the software should be solid, as well.

The hard part now is simply finding the money and getting the ships built in time for war.
 
Last edited:
Gibbs & Cox comes to mind immediately, it's just that without a robust Government engineering house, there's less capacity to push back when the contractor starts going into "sale mode" instead of "engineer mode".
Right, G&C is the only American combat Naval Architecture firm I know of.


DDG(X) seems fairly sedate as far as "futuristic warship designs" go. It's taking something similar to a Burke and bringing it up to "modern" standards like the UK Royal Navy has. The most difficult element will likely be the IEP. The radar and combat system already work, so they aren't hard, and the Navy has some IEP experience with the Zumwalt. The Navy also likely has staff who worked on Zumwalt too, and hopefully they're not as forgetful as some of the Crusader guys, but they're probably old.
I haven't heard any issues about the Zumwalt's IEP, and the base system was designed around the AMDR and other big electrical draws.

So it should be fine to recycle the entire Zumwalt engineering plant.


It may yet avoid the issues of IEP that Type 45s had, though those were so peculiar to the WR-21 intercooler I'm not sure they can be replicated, so they're probably safe.
Got more details about that? Or the thread where we talked about it?


The Navy uses Linux too, so the software should be solid, as well.
Problem is, Aegis doesn't like the TSCE, so they'd need to write a new version of Aegis that plays nice with TSCE.


The hard part now is simply finding the money and getting the ships built in time for war.
It's going to be a decade before we see DDGX ships in the water, since as far as I know there's not even a solid design yet. At a minimum it'll be 5 years before the ship hits the water, and that assumes a mostly-Zumwalt hull with a different bow.
 
Yes, the Zumwalts were intended to go play in the littorals and have little/no AA capabilities.
I will not call 80 missile and radar par with the Burke, after the cutdown at that, little or no.

Like even going Tomahawk heavy with over 20 missiles, you still got a decent amount of SM2s/SM6s before even adding in the quad packing of ESSMs.

The Zumwalt is a beast of AA design even lamed as it is.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom