Great post - I concur 100% that this is a promising start but too-small and lacking sufficient VLS cells. If the ROKN can fit 128 cells on a ship the size of an Flight III Arleigh Burke DDG, we can surely do better here.
The wording on the slide is clumsy. The concept image shows 64 cells in the forward block, and a midships block is just visible behind the deckhouse which looks like it may be another 32. The 32-for-12 swap would only affect a portion of the total cells, one presumes.
The meaning of the "payload module" is also not made clear, but the choice of terminology evokes the Virginia Payload Module, which is a hull insert enabling Block V boats to carry 4 additional payload tubes. If this was an intentional reference, and the blue text is taken as "this is something to be added," they may be considering a similar plug as something some (but not all) DDG(X)s could be built with.
We are in the missile age, traditional hulls are too vulnerable, think ahead think semisubmersible variants and sail with that - this is what transformationalists should have delivered.
We've been in the missile age since 1967. And in that time, rather small numbers of ships have been sunk by missiles.
Our opponents, allies, and peers seem not to be prepared for the mythical, 20 years from now semi-submersible combatant, and given that we need ships now, neither should we be waiting on it.
Absolutely concur with do it NOW. We used to have a CGX program, but that fell by the wayside for any number of reasons only explainable if you served a tour in DC.
Set a time limit on total design time as well as the final construction deadline. I had the opportunity to work as the Blue Team Design Integration Manager for DDG-1000, and my Ph.D dissertation was on DoD cost overruns, so I think I have some room to speak up on this. The only way to keep displacement and total cost under control is to set requirements that don't violate the laws of physics, provide steady development funding, develop a risk management program that does more than parrot the program manager's personal point of view, and tie total program success to everyone's fitrep.
Correcting one minor point for the purposes of historical truth: I worked on the Northrop-Raytheon team, which was the Gold team, IIRC. No intent to take the shine off my very capable counterparts at BIW.
I am happy to see Navy moving, apparently, towards many smaller combatant platforms rather than a few larger ones. Like others here, I applaud the urging to build the damn things, get the "ship of development" underway so steering can be achieved. Course adjustments, as Sal says, can be made down-wind. Building DDGs is the important thing.
I am unhappy that the "ship of development" -- and its implied necessity, budgeting -- is thought of as proceeding to sea separated from "development" (and budgeting) of Space, Air, Cyber, and Land forces. What's the strategic purpose of that?
It impresses me, for example, that a ship with no safe and properly equipped port to make (i.e., Land) is bio-chemical garbage. Ditto an airplane with no safe and properly equipped flight deck/runway. Also, the idea that Land Force (Army) matters only as perimeter for air and naval bases -- an idea dominating DOD at this time, no thanks to think tankers, defense contractors, and some tech-obsessed idiot savants -- makes those bases fixed positions, than which nothing is more indefensible. (Marines are a land-assault force, Naval Infantry plus supports, not a land-holding force, Army Infantry plus supports.)
I'd be happy to see Joint Force/Joint Mission thinking that is actually joint. That DOD components of "The Interagency" are uninterested in the same at this time -- despite occasional yet perfunctory senior military rhetoric that they are -- preferring hoary habits of traditional jurisdiction and budget bickering, branch-rotating COCOM (except INDO-PACOM!) and JCS billets, and preening prestige rivalries, does not preclude, although it does retard, the victory of common sense with respect to the war-fighting potential and preparedness of Americans' Joint Armed Forces: we fight to win, not to fight, and all of us together do this, as five sinews of One Force.
I hope they are not paralyzed by recent memories of development horror shows that the Navy can not afford today.
Also, do we have the ship yard capacity to build this and Burke's? Can BIW flip from Zumwalt construction to (DDGX)? If so why not keep the Zumwalt hullform? I know its a much larger ship but it would seem to make sense if production is already set up. Perhaps flight 3 combats systems cannot fit or something like that?
The only major changes are supposed to be the hull form and propulsion/power systems--and yet they say the hull form is not finalized?
Finalize the hull form--then we can talk. Has anyone published information on the DDG 1000 class hull form? Is it better or worse than traditional hull forms? Is this ship going to be Arctic capable--not with a bulbous bow.
BTW: I am not so enamored by Hypersonic Missiles--they take up a lot of real estate, and what advantages are traded off? The missile gets to the target quicker--and maybe it is a bit harder to shoot down? I think if anything has been learned from past experience is that VLS cells need to be maxed out on any new hull form. In a war, who has the time and resources to reload expended missiles? A new surface combatant should literally bristle with missiles.
Start by stretching the Burke hull to maximize hydrodynamic, the hull has always been "tubby", and add the new engineering plant. Call it Flight IV, and build one or two to work out the kinks.
A 9.5:1 hull ratio would allow for about a 20m/65ft 'plug' with room for a VLS for hypersonics above and any needed volume below for the new powerplant. As these are built in sections, a plug can be inserted without redesigning the entire ship, and only making minimal changes to the adjacent blocks.
It'll never work, tho... the shipbuilding industry would not make nearly as much in design fees as they would for an entirely new ship. Not enough pork!!
I thought of the FFF-7 class when reading the build now update later section. Never happened but part of that was Reagan's buildup providing more money and manning, and the money flowed to AEGIS platforms. Like with today's growth of Chinese platforms, we needed numbers to counter Soviet growth. We don't have the luxury of dithering as we did with the arsenal ship, which, if memory serves, was in one plan going to pull a barge full of vertical launch missiles. Maybe another mission (resupply or even remote strike) for an unmanned platform? Naval aviation's new tanker comes to mind.
I assume the hypersonic missiles will be the large, longer-range ASCMs. Makes sense to have them on multiple platforms. Perhaps we can get creative as we did with cramming them in nooks as we did with harpoons on fantails and tomahawks (BBs).
I saw something in here that tickled a thought I've had for some time now-
What would a new tender, be it an AD or AS, or just a general purpose tender, look like?
What capabilities do you need to make having a tender worthwhile, versus what can you trim away to make such a ship affordable.
How much capability should be hard wired to the hull, versus how many machine shops can you stuff in a container to be mounted later?
If we can make an ESB, surely we can make a tender.
What does the front porch think?
Great post - I concur 100% that this is a promising start but too-small and lacking sufficient VLS cells. If the ROKN can fit 128 cells on a ship the size of an Flight III Arleigh Burke DDG, we can surely do better here.
The ROKN doesn't have the range requirement USN has. We have to GET to the fight before we can fight the fight. ROKN is already on-scene.
The wording on the slide is clumsy. The concept image shows 64 cells in the forward block, and a midships block is just visible behind the deckhouse which looks like it may be another 32. The 32-for-12 swap would only affect a portion of the total cells, one presumes.
The meaning of the "payload module" is also not made clear, but the choice of terminology evokes the Virginia Payload Module, which is a hull insert enabling Block V boats to carry 4 additional payload tubes. If this was an intentional reference, and the blue text is taken as "this is something to be added," they may be considering a similar plug as something some (but not all) DDG(X)s could be built with.
Build now faster concur
We are in the missile age, traditional hulls are too vulnerable, think ahead think semisubmersible variants and sail with that - this is what transformationalists should have delivered.
We've been in the missile age since 1967. And in that time, rather small numbers of ships have been sunk by missiles.
Our opponents, allies, and peers seem not to be prepared for the mythical, 20 years from now semi-submersible combatant, and given that we need ships now, neither should we be waiting on it.
Absolutely concur with do it NOW. We used to have a CGX program, but that fell by the wayside for any number of reasons only explainable if you served a tour in DC.
Set a time limit on total design time as well as the final construction deadline. I had the opportunity to work as the Blue Team Design Integration Manager for DDG-1000, and my Ph.D dissertation was on DoD cost overruns, so I think I have some room to speak up on this. The only way to keep displacement and total cost under control is to set requirements that don't violate the laws of physics, provide steady development funding, develop a risk management program that does more than parrot the program manager's personal point of view, and tie total program success to everyone's fitrep.
Correcting one minor point for the purposes of historical truth: I worked on the Northrop-Raytheon team, which was the Gold team, IIRC. No intent to take the shine off my very capable counterparts at BIW.
FWIW -
I am happy to see Navy moving, apparently, towards many smaller combatant platforms rather than a few larger ones. Like others here, I applaud the urging to build the damn things, get the "ship of development" underway so steering can be achieved. Course adjustments, as Sal says, can be made down-wind. Building DDGs is the important thing.
I am unhappy that the "ship of development" -- and its implied necessity, budgeting -- is thought of as proceeding to sea separated from "development" (and budgeting) of Space, Air, Cyber, and Land forces. What's the strategic purpose of that?
It impresses me, for example, that a ship with no safe and properly equipped port to make (i.e., Land) is bio-chemical garbage. Ditto an airplane with no safe and properly equipped flight deck/runway. Also, the idea that Land Force (Army) matters only as perimeter for air and naval bases -- an idea dominating DOD at this time, no thanks to think tankers, defense contractors, and some tech-obsessed idiot savants -- makes those bases fixed positions, than which nothing is more indefensible. (Marines are a land-assault force, Naval Infantry plus supports, not a land-holding force, Army Infantry plus supports.)
I'd be happy to see Joint Force/Joint Mission thinking that is actually joint. That DOD components of "The Interagency" are uninterested in the same at this time -- despite occasional yet perfunctory senior military rhetoric that they are -- preferring hoary habits of traditional jurisdiction and budget bickering, branch-rotating COCOM (except INDO-PACOM!) and JCS billets, and preening prestige rivalries, does not preclude, although it does retard, the victory of common sense with respect to the war-fighting potential and preparedness of Americans' Joint Armed Forces: we fight to win, not to fight, and all of us together do this, as five sinews of One Force.
I hope they are not paralyzed by recent memories of development horror shows that the Navy can not afford today.
Also, do we have the ship yard capacity to build this and Burke's? Can BIW flip from Zumwalt construction to (DDGX)? If so why not keep the Zumwalt hullform? I know its a much larger ship but it would seem to make sense if production is already set up. Perhaps flight 3 combats systems cannot fit or something like that?
The only major changes are supposed to be the hull form and propulsion/power systems--and yet they say the hull form is not finalized?
Finalize the hull form--then we can talk. Has anyone published information on the DDG 1000 class hull form? Is it better or worse than traditional hull forms? Is this ship going to be Arctic capable--not with a bulbous bow.
Finalize the hull form!
BTW: I am not so enamored by Hypersonic Missiles--they take up a lot of real estate, and what advantages are traded off? The missile gets to the target quicker--and maybe it is a bit harder to shoot down? I think if anything has been learned from past experience is that VLS cells need to be maxed out on any new hull form. In a war, who has the time and resources to reload expended missiles? A new surface combatant should literally bristle with missiles.
KISS with baby steps!
Start by stretching the Burke hull to maximize hydrodynamic, the hull has always been "tubby", and add the new engineering plant. Call it Flight IV, and build one or two to work out the kinks.
A 9.5:1 hull ratio would allow for about a 20m/65ft 'plug' with room for a VLS for hypersonics above and any needed volume below for the new powerplant. As these are built in sections, a plug can be inserted without redesigning the entire ship, and only making minimal changes to the adjacent blocks.
It'll never work, tho... the shipbuilding industry would not make nearly as much in design fees as they would for an entirely new ship. Not enough pork!!
I thought of the FFF-7 class when reading the build now update later section. Never happened but part of that was Reagan's buildup providing more money and manning, and the money flowed to AEGIS platforms. Like with today's growth of Chinese platforms, we needed numbers to counter Soviet growth. We don't have the luxury of dithering as we did with the arsenal ship, which, if memory serves, was in one plan going to pull a barge full of vertical launch missiles. Maybe another mission (resupply or even remote strike) for an unmanned platform? Naval aviation's new tanker comes to mind.
I assume the hypersonic missiles will be the large, longer-range ASCMs. Makes sense to have them on multiple platforms. Perhaps we can get creative as we did with cramming them in nooks as we did with harpoons on fantails and tomahawks (BBs).