Jump to content

User:I edit things that come to mind/sandbox/DDG(X) (U.S. Navy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Class overview
NameDDG(X)
Builders
OperatorsUnited States Navy (planned)
Preceded by
Cost
  • $2.4 billion (Navy estimate of average procurement in constant FY2021 dollars)
  • $2.9 billion (Congressional Budget Office estimate of average procurement in constant FY2021 dollars)
BuiltBeginning in 2028 (planned)
Planned44 (According to Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the U.S. Navy's December 2020 Shipbuilding Plan)
General characteristics
TypeGuided-missile destroyer
DisplacementBetween 9,700 - 15,700 tons
PropulsionIntegrated electric propulsion

The DDG(X) (formerly known as Large Surface Combatant (LSC)[1] and DDG Next[2]) is a next-generation guided-missile destroyer program currently in development by the United States Navy. It is designed to be the successor to the Ticonderoga-class cruiser and potentially early models of the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer.[3][4]

Background

[edit]

Integrated Propulsion System research

[edit]

With the development of the Zumwalt-class, the U.S. Navy researched integrated propulsion system for its application to the latter and future warships

CG(X) and Zumwalt-class destroyer

[edit]

The original program to replace the Ticonderoga-class cruisers was the CG(X) program. The CG(X) program was announced in November 1, 2001, with the aim to procure a total of 19 CG(X) cruisers to replace 22 Ticonderoga-class cruisers. The first CG(X) cruiser was suppose to be procured in 2011, however, the procurement schedule was delayed to 2017 due to the Department of Defense's (DoD's) decision to reevaluate the CG(X) program's requirements and acquisition strategy. Ultimately, the program was cancelled in 2011 in favor of the Flight III variant of the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. The U.S. Navy cited the cancellation due to affordability and feasibility upgrading the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer to its Flight III version, the improved destroyers' procurement beginning in 2016, concerns of high cost and immature technologies associated with the CG(X), and the U.S. Navy's Anti-aircraft warfare (AAW) and Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) focus of augmenting surface combatant radars with space-based sensors rendering the need for a larger radar envisioned on the CG(X) redundant.[5]

Likewise, the Zumwalt-class destroyer, which the CG(X) was based off of, was planned to replace some of the Arleigh Burke-class. Like the CG(X), the U.S. Navy turned to the Arleigh Burke-class Flight III following the massive reduction of the Zumwalt-class' acquisition due to the U.S. Navy's shift in focus from operating in littoral waters against weaker naval adversaries (i.e. North Korea and Iran) to competing against near-pear threats (i.e. China and Russia) in open waters, cost overruns that triggered a breach in the Nunn–McCurdy Amendment on February 1, 2010, and the cancellation of Long Range Land Attack Projectile in November 2016, which in turned rendered its Advanced Gun System (and the ships' original purpose) effectively void.[6]

Ticonderoga-class retirement and modernization struggles

[edit]

The first five Ticonderoga-class cruisers were deemed to expensive to modernize and were decommissioned between 2004 to 2005.[4]

With the cancellation of the CG(X) program, the U.S. Navy opted to modernize 12 cruisers to extend its service life by about 15 more years. By July 2013, the navy has modernized eight out of the 12 planned cruisers.[7]

In 2014, the U.S. Navy announced it will lay up 11 cruisers under the FY2015 budget proposal. Their proposal is to have 11 cruisers, half of the cruiser fleet, taken out of deployment to undergo maintenance and modernization with the eventuality of being returned to service to switch out the active cruisers on a one-to-one basis. The proposal would allow the modernized cruisers to serve through the 2030s and 2040s, while the active cruisers would decommission around the 2020s. The navy proposed the plan as an alternative to retiring the cruisers, since they were denied by Congress, as well as a cost saving measure as the cruisers undergoing modernization would not be manned during its period. The proposal was met with opposition from the House Committee on Armed Services (HSAC), who are concerned that pulling half of the cruiser fleet out of service would stretch the navy thin and degrade their overall capabilities. Rep. J. Randy Forbes was furthered concerned that the navy's proposal could make the cruisers be vulnerable to budget cuts and early retirements. The U.S. Navy reiterated that modernization plan is necessary due to budget constraints from the Ohio Replacement Program.[8][9][10] The U.S. Navy would later propose the "2-4-6" plan; the navy would lay up two cruisers for modernization each year for up to four years, with a total of six cruisers being modernized at any given time. However, the HSAC desired that the four year lay up limit be reduced to two years, changing the "2-4-6" plan into "2-2-6". The HSAC cited the increase demand for the cruisers' ballistic missile defense capabilities against North Korea, Russia, and China as the reason for the shorter modernization period. Admiral Jonathan Greenert criticized the changes, stating in a letter to Rep. Forbes that the "2-2-6" plan would not save the navy any money compared to the previous two plans and that the new plan would delay the Ticonderoga-class' retirement to 2035 and further strain the navy's shipbuilding budget.[11]

In 2017, in order to fulfill the Trump Administration's goal of having the U.S. Navy's fleet size increase to 355 ships, U.S. Navy began extending the service life of many of its ships, including the Ticonderoga-class cruisers.[12] However, it was reported on October 2017 that the U.S. Navy announced it would start retiring their cruisers beginning at 2020, with 11 cruisers decommissioning by 2026. The news comes amidst a report from Navy Times detailing severe morale issues aboard the USS Shiloh (CG-67).[13] In response, Rep. Rob Wittman called on the U.S. Navy to initiate a five-year service-life extension program of the 11 oldest cruisers instead of retiring them. The congressman reasoned that the money saved from the navy's "2-4-6" plan could be used to fund the service-life extension program.[14][15]

On March 2019, the U.S. Navy announced it was considering cancelling the service-life extension programs on six of their oldest cruisers. The cruisers that had their service-life extension cancelled include the Bunker Hill, Mobile Bay, Antietam, Leyte Gulf, San Jacinto, and Lake Champlain. The cancellation of the planned service-life extensions has been attributed to the difficulty maintaining the ageing cruisers. The HSAC, which has staunchly opposed the retirement of any Ticonderoga-class cruisers in the past, began to slowly acknowledge the futility of extending the cruisers' service life. At the time of the announcement, the cruisers that underwent modernization under the "2-4-6" plan include the Cowpens, Gettysburg, Vicksburg, and Chosin.[16]

Proposed Ticonderoga-class replacement

[edit]

During the period of the Ticonderoga-class' retirement and modernization struggle, Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) offered to build a new class of cruisers based on the San Antonio-class landing platform dock (LPD), with a general focus revolving around BMD. HHI showcased their BMD cruiser concept at Sea Air Space 2014. The BMD cruiser proposed by HII would be much larger than the Ticonderoga-class at 25,000 tons. Owing to its very large size, the BMD cruiser would be equipped with: a 35 foot S-band radar that would provide a significantly larger radar coverage than the SPY-1 radars used on Aegis equipped warships, 288 Mark 41 VLS or 144 Mark 57 VLS, laser weapon, railgun, a large power system, a helicopter hanger with an elevator large enough to accommodate two V 22 aircraft, and a growth potential of 5,000 tons.[17][18][19] At Sea Air Space 2017, Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) showcased a newer model of their BMD cruiser concept dubbed the "Future Surface Combatant".[20]

Development

[edit]

On April 2014, the U.S. Navy began conceptualizing a successor to the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer under the name Future Surface Combatant.[21] In 2017, the U.S. Navy conducted wargames to accurately assess and gauge the requirements and capabilities needed for the Future Surface Combatant family, which includes: a large surface combatant akin to a cruiser or destroyer, a small surface combatant akin to a frigate or littoral combat ship, unmanned surface vehicles, and a integrated combat system linking them all together.[22]

On April 2018, Admiral John M. Richardson laid out his vision on acquiring a successor to the Ticonderoga-class cruiser by modeling off the strategy of the FFG(X) program. The principle strategy would be to use an existing hull design and modify to suit the navy's requirements. Adm. Richardson states the reason for the strategy is to initiate an aggressive approach in conceptualizing the new warship early and speed up its development for a faster acquisition. The three main focus of the new warship program that Richardson envisions is: usage of an existing hull design to speed up development, the ability to produce a large amount of power for future weapons and systems, and modularity to rapidly switch out systems. Experts have noted that in terms of fulfilling the first and second requirements, the only available hull design would be the Zumwalt-class destroyer and the San Antonio-class LPD, although the San Antonio-class's lower speed and inability to keep up with a carrier strike group is noted to be a concerning trait.[23][24] On July 2018, then-Rear Admiral William J. Galinis announced that the Naval Sea Systems Command Program Executive Offices (PEO), along with the surface warfare directorate of The Pentagon and other parties involved, were in the "very very early stages of concept development" of the large combatant of the Future Surface Combatant family. While no hull design has been selected, Rear Adm. Galinis stated that the initial combat system will be the same ones used on the Arleigh Burke-class Flight III destroyers.[25] On August 28, 2018, Admiral Ronald A. Boxall stated to USNI News that the new large combatant will incorporate elements of the Arleigh Burke-class and Zumwalt-class destroyer. Additionally, the first warship will be purchased in 2023 and that new "blocks" of said warships will be planned every five years. At the time of the reporting, Adm. Boxall stated he doesn't know if the future large combatant should be classified as a cruiser or destroyer given the similar roles both types of warships fulfill.[26]

In March 2019, it was reported that the U.S. Navy would delay its acquisition of the Large Surface Combatant by two years, pushing the program back from 2023 to 2025. UNSI News notes that in the FY2020 budget the navy would continue to procure Arleigh Burke-class Flight III destroyers to 2024, two years past the planned final procurement in 2022, which would have then transition to the original scheduled procurement of the Large Surface Combatant in 2023.[27]

On June 4, 2021, the U.S. Navy established a program office for the DDG(X). The program office is designated as PMS 460 under the PEO. With an initial staff of 16 personnel, the program is led by Capt. David Hart as the Major Program Manager and Katherine Connelly as the Deputy Program Manager. The program office is responsible for developing an acquisition strategy, ship design, technical data package, construction, testing, fleet introduction, and sustainment plans for the DDG(X). In addition, a great deal of importance is placed on the DDG(X)'s integrated propulsion system that the PEO Ship's Electric Ship Program will transition into the DDG(X) program office.[3][28][29] The program office is also cooperating with Ingalls Shipbuilding and Bath Iron Works in developing the conceptual design of the DDG(X).[30] Furthermore, the U.S. Navy requested $121.8 million to continue the development of the DDG(X): $79.7 million for concept development and $42.1 million for research on the integrated power system.[3][4][31] According to the U.S. Navy's FY 2022 budget request, the preliminary design of the DDG(X) will begin in 2022, followed by detailed designing in 2026, and then construction beginning in 2028.[3][28][29]

On August 5, 2021, General Electric announced it could supply LM2500 engines for the DDG(X) destroyers.[32]

Design

[edit]

The hull design of the DDG(X) is said to be evolved from the designs of the Arleigh Burke-class and Zumwalt-class destroyers[4], although Adm. Galinis speculates that the hull design will look closer Zumwalt-class than the Arleigh Burke-class.[33] The DDG(X)'s displacement will be larger than the Arleigh Burke-class Flight III (9,700 tons), but less than the Zumwalt-class (15,700 tons). The new hull design will integrate non-developmental systems that will incorporate platform flexibility and space, weight, power and cooling (SWAP-C) improvements to meet future combat force capabilities and system requirements that are not achievable with older hull designs. The new hull will also allow future growth and flexibility when upgrading and installing new systems, and additionally improve range and fuel efficiency for increased operational flexibility, while also decrease the demand on the logistics force.[31][4]

The new destroyer will be equipped with next-generation integrated propulsion system (IPS) based on experiences gained from the IPS of the Zumwalt-class destroyer and Columbia-class submarine. The new IPS will enable the DDG(X) to utilize high-energy demanding weapons, sensor systems, and computing resources.[4] According to an interview with Seapower magazine, the U.S. Navy wants the DDG(X) to be a "full electric ship".[32] Researches at the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania have implied that the DDG(X) will operate laser weapons by utilizing a new paradigm that will integrate the electric propulsion and the high-energy electric weapon aboard the warship.[34]

The initial combat system will be similar to that of the Arleigh Burke-class Flight III destroyers.[4]

Issues and Challenges

[edit]

A sense of urgency surrounds the development and procurement of the DDG(X) due to the lack of successors to Ticonderoga-class cruisers and the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. Defense News notes that the U.S. Navy has struggled to find a new large surface combatant(s) to succeed either class of warships. The Arleigh Burke-class destroyer in particular is noted to have undergone many evolutions and upgrades, with the Flight III version being its most pinnacle design. Upgrades and capabilities beyond the Flight III's Aegis Baseline 10 and AN/SPY-6 cannot be done on the Arleigh Burke-class hull design and will need to be installed on a future platform design; one that provides greater space, weight, power, and cooling margins.[29] George Awiszus, director of Military Marketing and Business Development for GE Marine, noted that in terms of electrical power, the Arleigh Burke-class has "maxed out" and that DDG(X) destroyers will need more power to operate their sensors, weapons, and propulsion.[32] Meanwhile the Ticonderoga-class cruisers would be reaching the end of their service lives between 2021 to 2038.[4] Popular Mechanics notes that the DDG(X) will have a big role to fill as the newest backbone of the U.S. Navy in the mid-21st century. Additionally, with the retirement of the Ticonderoga-class cruisers the DDG(X) program will need to be on track and on time to fill in the gaps.[35]

Identifying the DDG(X)'s operational capabilities is one key challenge the U.S. Navy faces with the DDG(X) program, especially with the navy's aim to rely more on large numbers of smaller surface combatants. In 2021, the U.S. Navy operates 92 large surface combatant warships (cruisers and destroyers), but plans to reduce those numbers to 74 in the future due to the increased focus and reliance on operating smaller warships and unmanned surface and underwater drones. In light of this, the DDG(X) will need to conduct missions that smaller combatants cannot do.[4][29]

Estimating and planning the destroyers' procurement costs, quantity, and rate of procurement are another set of challenges. According to Defense News, the aforementioned focus on smaller combatants will influence how much the navy is willing to pay for the DDG(X).[29] According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the first DDG(X) would be the more expensive compared to the follow-on procurements due to the incorporation of detailed design and nonrecurring engineering costs. Using the value of the dollar in 2019, the U.S. Navy desires to have the first DGG(X) be procured between $3.5 billion to $4.0 billion, with the 10th ship's procurement cost being reduced to $2.1 billion to $2.5 billion. The U.S. Navy's long-range shipbuilding document in 2020 estimates that the average procurement cost for the DDG(X) will be at $2.9 billion using dollars in 2021. According to the CRS, procuring 11 DDG(X) destroyers can attach one destroyer to each of the U.S. Navy's 11 large aircraft carriers, procuring 22 would fully replace the Ticonderoga-class cruisers, and additional procurements can be made to replace older Arleigh Burke-class destroyers that will begin to retire in the 2030s.Note 1 The CRS also suggests that the U.S. Navy may potentially have an annual procurement rate of one to two DDG(X) per year.[4]

In 2021, the U.S. Navy faces issues transitioning the procurement from Arleigh Burke-class Flight III to the DGG(X). Concerns have risen over the transitions' impact on navy's funding requirements and the U.S. shipbuilders who make the warships. Due to the conflicting procurements, the U.S. Navy postponed the acquisition of the DDG(X) from 2025 to 2028, allowing the continued procurement of the Flight III destroyers from 2022 to 2026 or 2027.[6][29][4]

Notes

[edit]
1.^ The U.S. Navy has 10 Nimitz-class aircraft carriers, 1 Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier, and 22 Ticonderoga-class cruisers actively serving at the time of CRS's reporting.

References

[edit]
  1. ^ O'Rourke, Ronald (4 November 2020). "Navy Large Surface Combatant (LSC) Program: Background and Issues for Congress". Congressional Research Service. Retrieved 25 August 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  2. ^ O'Rourke, Ronald (12 January 2021). "Navy Future Large Surface Combatant (LSC) (DDG Next) Program: Background and Issues for Congress". Congressional Research Service. Retrieved 25 August 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  3. ^ a b c d LaGrone, Sam (4 June 2021). "Navy Stands Up Next-Generation Destroyer Program Office, Construction Start Planned for FY 28". USNI News. Retrieved 29 August 2021.
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k O'Rourke, Ronald (2 August 2021). "Navy DDG(X) Next-Generation Destroyer Program: Background and Issues for Congress". Congressional Research Service. Retrieved 25 August 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  5. ^ O'Rourke, Ronald (10 June 2010). "Navy CG(X) Cruiser Program: Background for Congress" (PDF). Defense Technical Information Center. pp. 1–5. Retrieved 25 August 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  6. ^ a b O'Rourke, Ronald (29 July 2021). "Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress" (PDF). Federation of American Scientists. pp. 6, 10–11, 16–26. Retrieved 26 August 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  7. ^ "Navy Upgrades More Than a Third of Cruisers". Military.com. 9 July 2013. Retrieved 20 September 2021.
  8. ^ Majumdar, Dave (24 February 2014). "Hagel: Navy to Lay Up 11 Cruisers, Carrier Cut Decision Delayed until 2016 Budget". USNI News. Retrieved 20 September 2021.
  9. ^ Osborn, Kris (13 May 2014). "Congress Blocks Navy's Plan to Lay Up 11 Cruisers". Military.com. Retrieved 24 September 2021.
  10. ^ Cox, Matthew (11 July 2014). "Congressman Says Wrong Time to Dry Dock Cruisers". Military.com. Retrieved 24 September 2021.
  11. ^ Osborn, Kris (30 April 2015). "House Mandates Shorter Modernization Periods for Navy Cruisers". Military.com. Retrieved 24 September 2021.
  12. ^ Rogoway, Tyler (1 June 2017). "The Navy Now Says It Can Get More Service Life Out Of Its Existing Fleet". The Drive. Retrieved 19 September 2021.
  13. ^ Trevithick, Joseph (11 October 2017). "US Navy Plans to Cut Cruisers by Half Amid Reports One Became Like a "Floating Prison"". The Drive. Retrieved 19 September 2021.
  14. ^ "Navy Can Afford to Save Its Cruisers, Lawmaker Says". Military.com. 20 October 2017. Retrieved 2 October 2021.
  15. ^ Larter, David B. (16 October 2017). "Influential congressman calls on Navy to extend lives of oldest cruisers". Defense News. Retrieved 2 October 2021.
  16. ^ Larter, David B. (18 March 2019). "Once again, the US Navy looks to scrap its largest combatants to save money". Defense News. Retrieved 2 October 2021.
  17. ^ "Huntington Ingalls Industries showcases its Ballistic Missile Defense ship based on LPD 17 class". Navy Recognition. 9 April 2014. Retrieved 25 September 2021.
  18. ^ Mizokami, Kyle (24 May 2017). "The Navy's Cruisers Are Old and It Has Nothing to Replace Them With". Popular Mechanics. Retrieved 25 September 2021.
  19. ^ "LPD Based Ballistic Missile Defense Ship". Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance. Retrieved 25 September 2021.
  20. ^ "HII's LPD-Based Future Surface Combatant Concept Could Replace Ticonderoga-class Cruisers". Navy Recognition. 19 April 2017. Retrieved 20 September 2021.
  21. ^ Osborn, Kris (9 April 2014). "Navy Makes Plans for New Destroyer for 2030s". Military.com. Retrieved 2 October 2021.
  22. ^ Eckstein, Megan (21 February 2017). "Wargames This Year To Inform Future Surface Combatant Requirements". USNI News. Retrieved 2 October 2021.
  23. ^ Larter, David B. (12 April 2018). "Navy's top officer lays out aggressive new cruiser replacement approach". Defense News. Retrieved 3 October 2021.
  24. ^ Rogoway, Tyler (16 April 2018). "Here's The Navy's Vision For A New Cruiser To Replace The Aging Ticonderoga Class". The Drive. Retrieved 3 October 2021.
  25. ^ Eckstein, Megan (11 July 2018). "PEO Ships: Future Surface Combatant Hull Still Undecided, But Will Use Flight III DDG-51 Combat System". USNI News. Retrieved 3 October 2021.
  26. ^ Eckstein, Megan (28 August 2018). "Navy's Next Large Surface Combatant Will Draw From DDG-51, DDG-1000 — But Don't Call it a Destroyer Yet". USNI News. Retrieved 3 October 2021.
  27. ^ Eckstein, Megan (15 March 2019). "Navy to Begin Large Surface Combatant Buys in 2025; Delayed From Original 2023 Start". USNI News. Retrieved 3 October 2021.
  28. ^ a b Burgess, Richard R (4 June 2021). "Navy Establishes Program Office for Next-Generation Guided-Missile Destroyer". Sea Power. Retrieved 30 June 2021.
  29. ^ a b c d e f Eckstein, Megan (4 June 2021). "US Navy creates DDG(X) program office after years of delays for large combatant replacement". Defense News. Retrieved 26 August 2021.
  30. ^ "US Navy sets up next-generation destroyer (DDG(X)) program office". Defense Brief. 5 June 2021. Retrieved 29 August 2021.
  31. ^ a b "Highlights of the Department of the Navy FY 2022 Budget: Office of Budget - 2021" (PDF). Secretary of the Navy. 2021. p. 3-3. Retrieved 26 August 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  32. ^ a b c Burgess, Richard R. (5 August 2021). "GE In 'A Good Position' to Power Navy's DDG(X), Company Official Says". Seapower. Retrieved 29 August 2021.
  33. ^ Werner, Ben (19 June 2019). "Navy: Next Large Surface Combatant Will Look A Lot Like Zumwalt". USNI News. Retrieved 3 October 2021.
  34. ^ NSWCDD Corporate Communications (30 August 2021). "NSWC Dahlgren and Philadelphia Divisions Develop Paradigm to Power Ships with Laser Weapons". Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA). Retrieved 26 September 2021.
  35. ^ Mizokami, Kyle (8 June 2021). "The Navy Is Officially Building Its Next-Gen Destroyer". Popular Mechanics. Retrieved 29 August 2021.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:I_edit_things_that_come_to_mind/sandbox/DDG(X)_(U.S._Navy)&oldid=1047999854"