Litton/Ingalls DDM (Destroyer, Missiles) 1980

[Triton]

Litton Industries (Ingalls Shipbuilding) produced a privately-funded design alternative for the DDX that it called DDM (Destroyer, Missiles) in 1980.

Link to US Destroyers: An Illustrated Design History by Norman Friedman:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Tzp58htKLkEC&pg=PA399&dq=Friedman+Destroyers+DDM

 

[TomS]

It should be obvious from the date, but just for clarity, the DDX referenced here is the Navy study begun in 1978 that eventually led to the Arleigh Burke (DDG 51) class, NOT the much later DDX that led to the Zumwalt (DDG 1000) class. Most of the pages describing this program are missing from the online version of US Destroyers.

 

[Just call me Ray]

Wouldn't that be DDM = DDG?

 

[Triton]

Wouldn't that be DDM = DDG?

I don't believe that Litton Industries (Ingalls Shipbuilding) intended DDM to be the US Navy classification for this class of ship. The ship was intended to be an affordable Aegis-equipped ship with VLS (vertical launch system), an alternative to the more expensive Aegis-equipped Spruance class variant that become the Ticonderoga class (CG-47) and the Aegis-equipped Virginia class variant, the unbuilt CGN-42 class. There was also the proposed Aegis-equipped strike cruiser (CSGN-01).

The Aegis-equipped guided missile ship certainly has an interesting history.

 

[Triton]

The reason why I say this is that the 9,600 ton Ticonderoga-class was originally classified as a guided missile destroyer (DDG), but the classification was changed before the keels were laid to CG (guided missile cruiser.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticonderoga_class_cruiser

If built, I wonder if this 6000 ton class of ship would have originally been designated as a guided missile frigate (FFG)?

 

[Oberon_706]

Necro-post (Sorry, not sorry...)

I'm interested in confirming the actual origin of this design study as i'm in the process of writing an article on the history of the Spruance/Kidd class and the lessons that could be ported forward into the modern USN. If this was indeed an internal Litton-Ingalls proposal from the Spru-can/Tico era, did they sell/gift the idea to Navantia (or did someone in the design department stumble across it later)? I only ask because a Spanish Armada F100/105 Alvaro de Bazan class or Royal Australian Navy Hobart class frigate (the RAN weirdly insists on calling them a destroyer) is obviously inspired by this 'DDM' concept (if not an outright copy of its essentials).

Can anyone shed some light?

Thanks.

 

[Moose]

Necro-post (Sorry, not sorry...)

I'm interested in confirming the actual origin of this design study as i'm in the process of writing an article on the history of the Spruance/Kidd class and the lessons that could be ported forward into the modern USN. If this was indeed an internal Litton-Ingalls proposal from the Spru-can/Tico era, did they sell/gift the idea to Navantia (or did someone in the design department stumble across it later)? I only ask because a Spanish Armada F100/105 Alvaro de Bazan class or Royal Australian Navy Hobart class frigate (the RAN weirdly insists on calling them a destroyer) is obviously inspired by this 'DDM' concept (if not an outright copy of its essentials).

Can anyone shed some light?

Thanks.

The positioning of the SPY radars as featured in the DDM concept got around, the NFR-90 NATO frigate was shown in a similar configuration. I don't think the F-100 cribbed off this concept any more dramatically than it did other designs.

 

[that_person]

Necro-post (Sorry, not sorry...)

I'm interested in confirming the actual origin of this design study as i'm in the process of writing an article on the history of the Spruance/Kidd class and the lessons that could be ported forward into the modern USN. If this was indeed an internal Litton-Ingalls proposal from the Spru-can/Tico era, did they sell/gift the idea to Navantia (or did someone in the design department stumble across it later)? I only ask because a Spanish Armada F100/105 Alvaro de Bazan class or Royal Australian Navy Hobart class frigate (the RAN weirdly insists on calling them a destroyer) is obviously inspired by this 'DDM' concept (if not an outright copy of its essentials).

Can anyone shed some light?

Thanks.

It's not unreasonable to think that ships designed to use the same systems for the same role in the relatively same time period would look similar, but share no intertwined design history. See the DDG(X) illustration and the Type 055 for example.

 

[TomS]

Necro-post (Sorry, not sorry...)

I'm interested in confirming the actual origin of this design study as i'm in the process of writing an article on the history of the Spruance/Kidd class and the lessons that could be ported forward into the modern USN. If this was indeed an internal Litton-Ingalls proposal from the Spru-can/Tico era, did they sell/gift the idea to Navantia (or did someone in the design department stumble across it later)? I only ask because a Spanish Armada F100/105 Alvaro de Bazan class or Royal Australian Navy Hobart class frigate (the RAN weirdly insists on calling them a destroyer) is obviously inspired by this 'DDM' concept (if not an outright copy of its essentials).

Can anyone shed some light?

Thanks.

The positioning of the SPY radars as featured in the DDM concept got around, the NFR-90 NATO frigate was shown in a similar configuration. I don't think the F-100 cribbed off this concept any more dramatically than it did other designs.

If Navantia got the design of this portion of superstructure from anywhere, it was probably Lockheed, not Litton-Ingalls. I suspect this is another case of RCA (later Lockheed) designing a standard deckhouse geometry for use across multiple ship designs. It was actually pretty time-consuming to redesign the waveguide geometry from the transmitter to the antenna face for a radar like SPY-1, so sticking to a specific known geometry was probably advantageous.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Necro-post (Sorry, not sorry...)

I'm interested in confirming the actual origin of this design study as i'm in the process of writing an article on the history of the Spruance/Kidd class and the lessons that could be ported forward into the modern USN. If this was indeed an internal Litton-Ingalls proposal from the Spru-can/Tico era, did they sell/gift the idea to Navantia (or did someone in the design department stumble across it later)? I only ask because a Spanish Armada F100/105 Alvaro de Bazan class or Royal Australian Navy Hobart class frigate (the RAN weirdly insists on calling them a destroyer) is obviously inspired by this 'DDM' concept (if not an outright copy of its essentials).

Can anyone shed some light?

Thanks.

The positioning of the SPY radars as featured in the DDM concept got around, the NFR-90 NATO frigate was shown in a similar configuration. I don't think the F-100 cribbed off this concept any more dramatically than it did other designs.

If Navantia got the design of this portion of superstructure from anywhere, it was probably Lockheed, not Litton-Ingalls. I suspect this is another case of RCA (later Lockheed) designing a standard deckhouse geometry for use across multiple ship designs. It was actually pretty time-consuming to redesign the waveguide geometry from the transmitter to the antenna face for a radar like SPY-1, so sticking to a specific known geometry was probably advantageous.

That is a very excellent point...

 

[TomS]

If this was indeed an internal Litton-Ingalls proposal from the Spru-can/Tico era,

Circling back to this, I don't think there is any question of the DDM's provenance. Friedman references Litton-Ingalls brochures from 1980 as his sources, and he is unlikely to have got that wrong. I think there may be some detailed errors, like the number of VLS cells (possibly errors in the source), but nothing major like the origin of the design.

Most of Friedman's relevant text is here:

Litton DDM (Aegis DDG) for USN c. 1980 - Shipbucket

Izar (now Navantia) did not have a partnership with Litton-Ingalls, as far as I know. The F-100 actually benefitted from some expertise from General Dynamics Bath Iron Works and Lockheed Martin. By 2000, those three had formed the AFCON (Advanced Frigate Consortium) offering F-100 derivative designs for export.

 

[TomS]

A different version of DDM, from Electronic Greyhounds.

Apparently offered as an alternative to DDGX/DDG-51. The SPY arrays are smaller, likely FARS/SPY-1F. Fore-and-aft Phalanx plus a possible 5-inch gun aft, like the early DDG-51 configuration. Looks like two large (64-cell?) blocks of VLS and probably no helicopter hangar, just a pad.

 

[TomS]

Wouldn't that be DDM = DDG?

I don't believe that Litton Industries (Ingalls Shipbuilding) intended DDM to be the US Navy classification for this class of ship. The ship was intended to be an affordable Aegis-equipped ship with VLS (vertical launch system), an alternative to the more expensive Aegis-equipped Spruance class variant that become the Ticonderoga class (CG-47) and the Aegis-equipped Virginia class variant, the unbuilt CGN-42 class. There was also the proposed Aegis-equipped strike cruiser (CSGN-01).

The Aegis-equipped guided missile ship certainly has an interesting history.

Interestingly, it seems that DDM was briefly the USN name for a study that later became DDX and eventually DDG-51


From:
PERFORMANCE OPTIMIZATION IN SURFACE WARSHIP DESIGN by JAMES RUSSELL FITZSIMONDS (MIT Masters Thesis, May 1980)

Study has been underway for some time in OPNAV and NAVSEA as to the follow-on class to the DD-963 which will replace the DDG-2 class in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In December of 1975 the DDX program was initiated by NAVSEA. The primary purpose of the program was to draw conclusions on desired characteristics for the Navy's next generation of destroyer in order
to provide some orientation to the Navy's research and development (R&D) programs. Evaluations of alternate combat suites were made and ship feasibility studies were initiated in March of 1977.

In October of 1977 the CNO issued the OR [Operational Requirement] for the proposed DDM, with the DDX characteristics being incorporated into that program. Eight alternative ship programs were studied for the DDM - all of which retained the basic hull and propulsion plant of the DD-963 as directed by the OR. In March of 1978 the DDM designation was officially changed by OPNAV to the DDX. In April of 1978, the DDX OR was cancelled by the CNO, primarily because of a
disagreement within OPNAV on the validity of the DDX mission as described in the OR. By that time the DP [Development Proposal] was essentially complete, although no longer valid.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Interestingly, it seems that DDM was briefly the USN name for a study that later became DDX and eventually DDG-51



From:
PERFORMANCE OPTIMIZATION IN SURFACE WARSHIP DESIGN by JAMES RUSSELL FITZSIMONDS (MIT Masters Thesis, May 1980)

Study has been underway for some time in OPNAV and NAVSEA as to the follow-on class to the DD-963 which will replace the DDG-2 class in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In December of 1975 the DDX program was initiated by NAVSEA. The primary purpose of the program was to draw conclusions on desired characteristics for the Navy's next generation of destroyer in order
to provide some orientation to the Navy's research and development (R&D) programs. Evaluations of alternate combat suites were made and ship feasibility studies were initiated in March of 1977.

In October of 1977 the CNO issued the OR [Operational Requirement] for the proposed DDM, with the DDX characteristics being incorporated into that program. Eight alternative ship programs were studied for the DDM - all of which retained the basic hull and propulsion plant of the DD-963 as directed by the OR. In March of 1978 the DDM designation was officially changed by OPNAV to the DDX. In April of 1978, the DDX OR was cancelled by the CNO, primarily because of a
disagreement within OPNAV on the validity of the DDX mission as described in the OR. By that time the DP [Development Proposal] was essentially complete, although no longer valid.

And that was a thesis for a Master's in PoliSci... odd.

 

[TomS]

And that was a thesis for a Master's in PoliSci... odd.

Not that weird. The thesis is really about the failures of the Navy acquisition processes to produce products that lined up with their own operational needs. Acquisition systems and organizational processes like that are pretty firmly in the political science wheelhouse. I wrote an undergrad Political Science thesis on how the evolution of military doctrine interacted with technology development through the 1970s.