10 Apr 2006
Cool Ship; What’s it for, Again?
Defense Tech’s Noah Shachtman points out his Popular Mechanics article. Go check it out.
Incidentally, now that the Navy has desiganted the DD(X) DDG 1000, couldn’t we start calling it DD(M)? Just wondering.
Also, if you’ve missed the DD(X) vs. BB debates in the comments sections, check out the latest one. 73 comments and counting…
April 10th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
The PRC Army must be quaking in their boots. This ship can launch 20 155mm artillery shells before fleeing for its survival! The dastardly Americans could wipe out an entire platoon with one of these ships! Wow, we are talking about the kind of firepower you would expect if you were to encounter an infantry platoon with support from their own battalion’s 120mm mortars. Who would train for that kind of devastation? And we will build 5 to 10 of them for $billions each. That kind of financial recklessness should intimidate any potential adversary.
April 10th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Very well said braum.^^
April 10th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
Fellers, You know, of course, that we might actually do more damage if we physically dumped the 2 billion dollars in cash over the target instead of building a ship with it. On second thought, we could simply use the 2 billion dollars to buy scads of blue jeans, hip hop CD’s and playboy magazines and airdrop all those over the PRC. Get lot’s of converts to the American way with that sort of approach. Use VOA to beam in MTV, etc. Ah well… I’m not at all against new construction. I’m simply against this new construction. Respects, AW1 Tim
April 10th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
Sigh… DD(X) = CG(X). Two ships. Price of one. Battleships are dead. NFS is not needed. Thats why we have aircraft carriers boys and girls.
April 10th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
At over 4 billion a pop (or so the current estimates on cost go), I could contend that the DD(X) is one ship for the price of two. The need for NFS is its own large debate. I would point out what we define as ‘near’ is changing. 100 nm is withing the range of many aircraft strike missions. Both the DD(X) could potentially reach that far- as could the higher tech shells for the BB. 16 inch guns can deliver a much larger payload at 100 nm then can the the DD(X)- or the same size much further. They could launch a shell for a fraction of the price of a aircraft mission- and without putting a pilot in danger.
April 10th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
My whole issue with Fire Support is that for a good long time, we’ve never actually needed it. Hell, even in 1991 we didnt need it. The BBs fired their guns just for show.
April 10th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
The idea that naval fire support is obsolete is a interesting one, but I don’t belive its correct. Fire support in general is certainly not obsolete- support from all sorts of artillery is a major part of land warfare. The ability of NFS to be usefull, however, is increasing. The reason is GPS designation and next generation inertial guidence. Whereas even ten years ago, the accuracy of shells was dependent on there ‘dumb ability, special artillery shells (even small mortar shells) can be programmed to hit specific target (as long as they are in arange). WHile the max range of normal 155mm was on the order of 15 miles, the usefull accurate range was much less. GPS guided shells changed this- you can shoot at max range- or even make elabrote guided shells hit on target. THe thing about BB’s 16 inch guns, is that you could far surpass what 6 inch gun can do with the Max glided rocket assited shells- yet have that same accruacy. Having range changes the usefullness NFS. If he BB can hit targets even double the 100 nm ddx max range that is not really traditional NFS- that is within the range many aircraft strike missions and/or cruise missile attacks. Is NFS usefull? Well is hitting targets 150 nm inland usefull? I think so. Does the DD(X) have a usefull payload at 100 nm? Well that I don’t know- but a 16 inch could put that amoung of weight much farther inland.
April 10th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
But look at it as a system as a whole. By the time our Marines land anywhere, chances are the combined forces of the USNAF and USAF will have devastated any enemy armed force. Thier structures, their armored vehicles, their troop concentrations, their HQs. Then whatever is left is handled by rotary wing assets like the AH-1. You can’t think one-dimensionally when it comes to fire support these days. Hell, I dont think DD(X) even needs the AGS. But it offers decent range, and can offer some fire support in a useful and responsive manner. Albeit nothing like a 16′er, but still, thats definitely not neccessary.
April 10th, 2006 at 6:18 pm
Being over reliant on air assets would certainly qualify for one-dimensional. Having a viable NFS around as alternative, is not. Using a long-range 16 inch shells, could dramatically cut back on combat sorties. Being able to strike targets with out having put pilots in danger is another benifit. There is big benifit to having the option of a large shell in bound, as opposed to being forced to wait for gunship to show up.
April 10th, 2006 at 7:04 pm
Excuse me, but how is NFS even considered an alternative? Contrary to popular belief, a BB wouldnt survive 10 seconds without friendly air cover while in range of enemy shore based missiles. One missile to the superstructure and you got a blind warship. One torpedo and your a goner. By the time a BB is in place to provide support, it won’t be needed. Theyll get a ‘thank you, but USAF and USNAF are on the case, try again in 60 years…’
April 10th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
Fellers, Yo, skrip00, one torpedo, one missle to the superstructure… same thing with the new bath tub toy the Navy wants to build, but it’ll be a smaller ship, and cost a LOT more when it turns turtle and dives to the bottom. Actually, it’ll take a LOT more than one missle or one torpedo to do in a BB. 18′ of homogeneous rolled armour plate along the hull? We can’t even MAKE that stuff anymore in our steel mills. It was DESIGNED to take hits, from Japanese ‘Long Lance’ torpedos and 18′ shells. Hit by a missle? Get real! It is to laugh! 20mm CIWS, STANDARD Missle system, ESM< and ECM systems and a ring of DD’s and CG’s, not to mention long range patrol and CAP forces controlled by E-2 AWACS birds. They gotta get close to hit a BB, and that just ain’t gonna happen. That’s a nice try, though. Really. It is. The BB’s would take a licking a keep on a’ticking from anything short of a Tactical Nuke. The only possible scenario for the DDX program is in the defense of the Taiwan Straits, and then it’s going to be 7 of them against around 3,000 or so Chinese missles and airplanes. The Chicom subs will die before they get off a shot, as will a good portion of their fleet, but the land based air and missile systems will survive unless we pre-strike with Nukes. The DDX will be in a fight for their lives, and without the larger crew to control damage and keep the vessel afloat, most of them will be artificial reefs within a couple days. What the navy needs is to start building riverine forces and shallow water vessels, not expensive geek ships without a mission beyond lining the pockets of General Dynamic’s shareholders. Respects, AW1 Tim
April 10th, 2006 at 8:05 pm
Actually, it’ll take a LOT more than one missle or one torpedo to do in a BB. 18′ of homogeneous rolled armour plate along the hull? We can’t even MAKE that stuff anymore in our steel mills. It was DESIGNED to take hits, from Japanese ‘Long Lance’ torpedos and 18′ shells. Hit by a missle? Get real! It is to laugh! 20mm CIWS, STANDARD Missle system, ESM Just like the Bismarck was thought to be unsinkable? Or how the Arizona shook off a single bomb? 20mm CIWS? Hah! If your relying on that, your already screwed. That system isnt even proven to work effectively, and the one time it had a chance to, a British Sea Dart did the job. Standard Missile? Dont think Iowas carry that… ESM? Its a friggin BB. L-band whatever or not, Its a huge radar target. As for surviving a Torpedo? Get real buddy. Torpedoes dont even hit the hull these days, they do something called ‘explode underneath the ship’. This does something called ‘break the keel’. This kills any ship. You think some WWII Steel Bath tub can survive in today’s Anti-ship environment? Get real. DD(X), Arleigh Burkes, Ticos, CG(X) will all have missile defense systems based on either the SM-2 or the ESSM. They all have long range air defense radars. Etc. Etc. But most importantly, and listen up on this point, Is that with air cover, these vessels may never take a hit. In fact, with US Naval Aviators overhead, there wouldnt be a need for Fire Support. Because they can do that role, and do it faster, more accurately, and cheaper than a BB can. However, DD(X) can do multiple roles, not just Fire Support. What can a BB do? Aside from being a fat target? You all make a big stink about 16′ guns, Im starting to think you all have a phallic obsession with big guns and big shells. The Battleships are dead. Their role died when Naval Airpower got accurate and efficient. When 250lb smart bombs started becoming the more popular alternative. When the USAF started dropping concrete bombs to minimize collateral damage. Swimming pools in a tube are out. Smaller, cheaper, more accurate, and globally deployable is in.
April 10th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
skrip00 Are you a card-carrying member of the airdale/zoomie mafia? Your argument sounds like their philosophy: You only need air to win all wars. With the exception of nuke armed missiles, the repair proceedure for a hit on a BB by ASCM is to issue paint brushes and paint to 1st division. Magnetic warheads were in mind when the BBs were built and their armored hull is designed to be torpedo resistant. The real problem is damage to props/rudders. That is also a weakness of the unarmored birdfarms that you are so in love with. Retired Blackshoe.
April 10th, 2006 at 9:02 pm
Dude, no warship can survive a torpedo detonation under its hull… cmon. And yes, aircraft can do its job. But if the USMC needs fire support within 20mi of the shoreline, then DD(X) can fullfill that duty. The only drawback is: DD(X) costs cover two vessels, not one. Also, they are being built in limited numbers. The Navy doesnt need that many ships for Fire Support. I expect DD(X)s to sail with Marine Amphib Groups, not CBGs. Give me a scenario where a Battleship can be used, and you’ve given me one that a Carrier Air Wing can handle on its own, and is also useful for DD(X). Lets face it. The BB is gone. Its past its prime. So get out of la la land already guys.
April 10th, 2006 at 9:07 pm
All navy ships need aircraft somwhere around for air defense- that is not unique to the BB. The thing is the BB could free up more sorties for that air defense, rather then doing bombing runs for the marines. The usefulness of historic naval support- with a range measured, in at most a couple dozen miles is a mute point. NFS today- thanks to GPS guided shells- can be effective at much farther ranges. This means we could convert a huge amount of near shore missions to Artillery strikes.
April 10th, 2006 at 9:11 pm
skrip00: One answer Beruit lessons learned 1983.
April 10th, 2006 at 9:22 pm
Forget Beruit- whatever the lessons learned. GPS guided shells are a new era for artillery. In the past, accuracy decreased the farther you went out. In general, the heavier the gun, the farther you shoot accurately (or at all). 155 mm non-smart shells have a max range around 15 nm- accurate fire is significantly less. What has changed, in just the past decade or so, is that now accuracy does NOT have to descrease with range. GPS allows arty to fire at max ranges- and beyond with rocket assist/glide shells yet still be accurate. With a 16 inch gun, you can achive a order of magnituge more range then 6 inch guns, yet have that same accuracy (or a larger warhead). Even the prototpe 16 inch shell with a 100nm range had a over 500 pound warhead.
April 10th, 2006 at 9:23 pm
All navy ships need aircraft somwhere around for air defense- that is not unique to the BB. The thing is the BB could free up more sorties for that air defense, rather then doing bombing runs for the marines. The usefulness of historic naval support- with a range measured, in at most a couple dozen miles is a mute point. NFS today- thanks to GPS guided shells- can be effective at much farther ranges. This means we could convert a huge amount of near shore missions to Artillery strikes. Oh really? So the F and A on F/A-18E is just there for the hell of it eh? As for Beirut? Times have changed. No one can deny the US airspace today or for years to come. DD(X) can be used in a Beirut situation… You dont need a BB. Are you guys serious? I mean, Yeah, BBs look cool, but cmon. You cant possibly believe they are useful in the 21st century. Like a broken record with some of you… ‘But but but but, 16′ers go a long way and make a bigger boom boom.’ Aircraft go further and drop more accurate fire. ‘But but but but DD(X) doesnt have long range with its guns!’ Doesnt need to. Its job is direct shore-fire support within 20 miles of the coastline. Then allowing the use of Marine’s artillery once theyve landed. A job with the assistance of US airpower. Also, how do you get around only having 2 BBs? Also, how do you get around upgrading these old ships? Also, how does upgrading the BBs provide work for America’s Shipyards?
April 10th, 2006 at 9:34 pm
What happened to your comment about not being to dependent on one force? ‘You can’t think one-dimensionally when it comes to fire support these days.’ You can’t assume that we will automatically have air superiority- it has to be fought for. The Navy may or may not have aircraft to provide tactial support for marines- and even if they do your going to pilots lives in danger. Assault helicopeters, can and have been taken out even when have air supremeacy. Having long range air support around is going to mean needing close close air support from helo’s- and less of them wasted by RPG, etc.. Risking a multi-billion dollar destroyer, with comparatively little hitting power, range, and endurance- especially when for a fraction of the price you can have a ship DESIGNED for slugging it out- slug it out. Not to mention you might be able to save some pilots lives while your at it.
April 10th, 2006 at 9:47 pm
Just too make a point – Skripp, its all about the F/A 18? I hate to burst your bubble – but the F/A 18 was/is at best an average 4th generation fighter. Even then, the navy got the loser of the cheap fighter competion. When I think of air dominance and control – the F-18 just does not inspire confidence.
April 10th, 2006 at 10:06 pm
No one can deny the US airspace today or for years to come.’ Sure they can. Todate we have been lucky because we have been picking on morons. The air force is tied to the big long strips of concrete call runways. If you put a hole in them, airplanes can’t take off. The Navy Carriers – can be put out of action in under a week. All you need is one submarine or suiside boat – and sink the resupply ship.
April 10th, 2006 at 11:17 pm
James beat me to it. I still wouldn’t be willing to bet the entire farm on air for bombardment, but I’d sure feel more at ease if we had more than the just Super Duper Hornet. It’s not a piece of junk. But it ain’t the basket I’d put all my eggs in.
April 11th, 2006 at 6:13 am
OK, birdfarm vs. BB is a great little discussion, but that all depends on availability of ships etc. when it comes to the crunch. Earlier noted though is the accuracy of the GPS guided shells. If there is such high accuracy, why do we need a 16inch shell? Wont a smaller round do the trick? Especially as now fire support missions are generally done in very close quarters due to the accuracy of air strikes. Remember we are not talking about bunker busting, etc. just good old fire support. This may even be a better alternative to the laser guided 500lbs bombs currently used. Hence why even the air force is having to downsize bombs to the 250lbs bomb. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/sdb.htm Who knows, in total the DD(X) system may actually be cheaper than the Air Forces approach (design of bomb, clearing on aircraft, training, etc.)
April 11th, 2006 at 7:58 am
Oh, I also forgot to mention: If you have a bomb, you need the aircraft to fly it. On station time/loiter time is always difficult to manage. The aircraft need a carrier or runway. The total cost of the whole aircraft infrastructure just to drop 1 bomb is quite high. I guess we need actual figures, but I reckon the ship may actually be cheaper and just as effective to have as fire support. Don’t get me wrong, I like aircraft more than I do ships, but I actually see some sense in this DD(X) program.
April 10th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
Amen to the above. In addition, they are only reducing the signature to that of a commercial fishing boat? And they think that’s good? I wonder how the hell much money that’s costing us? If they can’t reduce the signature to that of a row boat, it’s not even close to worth doing. I say bring back the battle ship, and quit screwing around with these little put-put pop-gun boats. Hell, bring back the battle ship and the Sea Shadow if you want some real stealth. Oh yeah, I forgot, they didn’t build the Sea Shadow to house a crew of 300. If you don’t have at least that many people feeding your ego, why even become a Captain? Damn Navy! I wonder how the DDX will fair against Iran’s supercavitating torpedoes and wing-in-ground effect aircraft? Those 200 mph torpedoes wouldn’t even need warheads to sink one. They’d just bounce off a battleship. These pieces of junk aren’t about today’s war or tomorrow’s.
April 11th, 2006 at 8:44 am
If there is such high accuracy, why do we need a 16inch shell? Wont a smaller round do the trick?’ Horses for courses. If you’re trying to destroy a car, use a Hellfire or something with a tiny warhead. If you’re trying to pound an entrenched enemy into surrender, 16′ shells work a wonder. A 500lb bomb may be the minimum size required to destroy a bunker. Thus a 16′ shell will work but a 5′ shell will not. Sometimes you want precision strike, sometimes you want craters that the moon would be proud of. Of course this discussion can go on forever. 16′ shells will be totally unnecessary in future.. until they become necessary again. Then the poor grunts will wish the battleships were still around.
April 11th, 2006 at 10:44 am
No one can deny airspace to the USAF or USN. Not China, not anyone. Also, If we cant control the airspace, then how do you expect your precious battleship to survive during shore bombardment? The two go hand in hand.
April 11th, 2006 at 11:17 am
If there is such high accuracy, why do we need a 16inch shell? Wont a smaller round do the trick?’ The answer is in many cases yes. This is still good new for 16 inch guns though, because for any given shell you can reduce payload size and make it go farther. You can always go to a smaller warhead but not bigger. The thing about the 6 inch vs 16 inch guns is that no matter whole small warhead you can find usefull on a 6 inch gun, the 16 inch can delever that from much farther away.
April 11th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
Replies to a couple of the above comments: The BB’s fire in 1991 was for show!? I don’t think the Iraqi units at the receiving end enjoyed the show. Marine friends of mine landed when the BB’s were done. They found many small, scattered body parts and shattered equipment. The Bismarck: Watch the History channel documentary. The Brits damaged the rudder with a torpedo, then pounded the Bismarck for hours with heavy guns. Maybe the most helacious beating any ship ever absorbed (except perhaps the USS Nevada). The Bismarck took it all and did not sink until numerous torpedoes from a destroyer finally broke the hull. The F-18 can establish air superiority anywhere in the world? Please.
April 11th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
Should we really mention 1991 as a good example? Saddam was always a very very poor tactician (as were his aides). The biggest problem I see is that there have not been any major beach landings since WW2. Since then equipment has been updated, in both assault forces and support vessels. Anyway, while courage, bravery and honour should be bestowed upon those who fell in WW2. Were the beach landings and they way they were executed actually the wisest tactical move? Casualty numbers on the scale that happened then would be unacceptable in todays standards. Chances are no beach assaults against fortified positions would ever occur. Helicopter insertion is the current norm – it is much harder to judge where it will occur. Much in the same way that parachute troops have been obsolete since WW2, where they were already proved to be disasterous for generating casualties.
April 11th, 2006 at 2:18 pm
And the Arizona just shook off a single bomb hit? Im sure they got a new can of paint for that one! Also, anywhere US airspace is denied, Im pretty sure a BB wouldnt last 5 minutes. You guys make a BB out to be invincible… when its far from it. A missile hit to the super structure would cause a mission kill. A hit through the deck will probably cause the whole ship to go up in smoke. Lets face it, it breaks down into this: 1. BB’s can support USMC landings. 2. There are no USMC landings without air superiority. Therefor, anytime the USMC lands anywhere, theyll have air superiority over the beach. Thus they can use air support. The more and more I listen to these bogus arguments from the pro-BB crowd, the happier I am with the Navy’s decision.
April 11th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
skrip is right. The Marines will always have constant air support from LHD/LHA and Carriers where ever they go. BBs are not useful anymore. They weren’t used in OIF and yet, the U.S. trounced the Iraqis anyway. If they had the DDX, the fire support would be even greater. Saying we need a BB with 16 inch guns is like saying we need 300mm land artillery. Explosives today are smaller yet more powerful than before. And as I keep saying over and over, urban combat will be the most likely of combat fought. It was during WW2, Vietnam, and in OIF 2 (if you can call it that). You don’t want overkill, it can put you and your fire squad in danger. If you don’t like the DDX, then you don’t like the SDB. There’s nothing to it, as they both have the same power.
April 11th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
Wanna bet a carrier that the Iranians can’t put a hole in one as it tries to slip through the Straights of Hormuz? Good luck with that one. A battleship could get through, but not these flimsy pieces of junk the Navy now calls a ship. The F-18 is garbage and always has been. I don’t care what letters you put after the number. It’s the worst airplane they’ve ever had. The only thing it has going for it is a huge program office that has made it everyone’s favorite public works program. A little more techo-welfare for the masses who vote.
April 11th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
You would almost have me convinced if the price tag per ship did not include the word ‘Billions’ – and it’s my money.
April 11th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
We are, after all, still arguing about the firepower of a battalion’s organic 120mm section with a $5 Billion delivery fee.
April 11th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
The biggest problem I see is that there have not been any major beach landings since WW2.’ No, the last ‘major’ one- the biggest in history was the Inchon landings during the Korean war. NFS has been many times since then- the latest serious case was in 2003 in souther Iraq. In a fight with Iran EVERY single one of there ports is vulnerable. ‘They weren’t used in OIF and yet, the U.S. trounced the Iraqis anyway.’ Given the state of Iraqi Naval and Air Force at the time, its not saying a lot. Not that it was a pushover on the ground, but their fight at sea and in there was not representive of what China, or even Iran for that matter is going to be able to do. THe ability of accurate long range (100nm +) NFS, could allow putting a less pilots in danger as well, and reduce the number of sorties needed for tactical support.
April 11th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
skrip Arizona was sunk by a 14′ shell converted to high altitude drop. Note the Arizona was obsolete even by BB mafias standards due to insufficient deck armor to deal with plunging rounds. The problem with the BBs is not that they are obsolete or that NSFS is not needed. The problem is that the steam plants are shot and it would cost too much to cut thru that thick armor to replace them. The problem with DD(X) is that it is a gold plated toilet seat. Too many bells and whistles added on to what should be a simple inshore gun/MRLS platform. Aircraft are not always available and the A-18 has too short of legs. (I do not consider it good enough to carry its secondary unofficial designation-see NATOPS manual.) The last assault landing was made in March 2003 by 40 Marine Commando, supported by DD/DDG NSFS, in order to flank the Iraqi positions on Al Faw. NSFS is still required and can be performed in weather that prevents air support. It needs a cost effective platform. Converting a Merchant ship with 8′ and MRLS makes much more sense to me.
April 11th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
A battleship could get through, but not these flimsy pieces of junk the Navy now calls a ship.’ I question that, simply because of a severe lack of manouverability compared to the ‘flimsy pieces of junk’. Also due to your point: Considering that you highly regard the usefulness of a BB, do you not think that the Iranians would aswell? What good would it do for the Iranians to hit the flimsy pieces of junk, considering that it is likely that when they shoot they should aim for a big goal. (not much of a chance of survival once they reveal their positions once they attack, be it air, ground or submarine) A BB is a pretty hard target to miss (unlike a smaller ship – especially with this super-cavitating torpedo), so it is simply a question of how many shots does it take to sink it?
April 11th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
’simple inshore gun/MRLS platform.’ These days its either multi-role or a piece of junk not worth buying. DD(X) will probably never be used in a NFS role. Even if it is, it will do its job well since it relies on proven technology used in regualr 155mm batteries. You will never see a dedicated fire support platform ever be purchased by the USN. Never. Aircraft are not always available and the A-18 has too short of legs. (I do not consider it good enough to carry its secondary unofficial designation-see NATOPS manual.) Shorter legs than the A-6 of F-14, but it can carry more advanced weapons systems, get there faster, and be more survivable. In the air, the F/A-18E/F is up there with the F-22A and F-35. Its AESA APG-79 radar plus the latest AIM-120 variants coupled with its low-observable features give it immense BVR capabilities. In WVR it has very good low speed handling, and generally good manuverability all around. But thats nothing compared to the fact it will have JHMCS and the AIM-9X. The F/A-18E/F is the premier in carrier aviation, filling multiple roles with one airframe, lowering costs (and your precious tax dollars), simplifying logistics, and providing a platform for the USN to use well into the 21st century.
April 11th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
I guess the main categories are- Pro DDX Pro BB Con DDX Pro BB Pro DDX Con BB Con DDX Con BB I am pro for both, but not for NFS on the DD(X) hull, only for its role as a next-generation blue water destroyer. The ability of the BBs to provide an the next generation of NFS- via long range guided shells- at ranges that far surpass 6 inch guns is impressive. The Navy’s focus on getting rid of them is not, but given the political power of the Navy I suppose it is inevitable.
April 11th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
Skrip- The F/A-18 E/F is decent, but relying on air alone for fire support is a big mistake. In a serious attack nearly the entire Air wing is going to be tied up in Air dominance and hitting strategic targets, not doing tactical strikes for a marine platoon.
April 11th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
Scrip: You sound like you have been reading the sales brocher. My twilite tour was NSAWC Fallon NV. My info is not from books, it is from TOPGUN pilots that fly those birds. Ground-support requires aviation assets on station when the grunts need it. Not when it is convenient to the short endurance attack bird. No loiter time due to lack of gas means gaps in ground-support. That gets grunts killed. A-18 was a decent replacement for the A-7. Not anything else. (according to the pilots that actually fly the birds.) NSFS’ biggest advantage is endurance on call when the grunts need it and not just in the landing. New Jersey’s NSFS ops off of Vietnam was not in support of an Amphib Assault. It was a mobile gun platform that could provide heavy artillery support over 70% of the country (without using the sabot rounds developed in ’80s). Take a map of the world. Plot the area within 160 miles of the coastlines. That is what the area that the BB’s 11′ sabot rounds could hit. With precision guided sub-munitions if chosen.
April 11th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
Well I am pro DDX and con BB, because, for the most part, the BB is obsolete in all standards. As I keep saying, Marines have thermobarics. No need for surface bombardment when you have a rocket or missile that can take out a building easily. And, it will constantly be overkill. A marine can not rely on a 16 inch shell for fire support, they are way too heavy. Plus, air support is provided by more than just F-35s or F-18s. AH-1Z King Cobras have twice the fire power of a Super Cobra. And, the Marines would have their own mortars, artillery, and perhaps maybe even a deritative of NET Fires. The DDX would provide even longer range fire support, with a constant firing of 2 shells every 10 seconds, or 1 shell every 5, considering it has 2 guns. And what is this about Navy ships being flimsy? It took tons of fire power, plus scuttling to take out the USS America. Besides, today we have blast resistant steel or paint. Before, you needed heavy armor. And how would a BB face a wake homing torpedo, an IR homing cruise missile, or a radar guided missile? Are you saying it is invincible, that it can just keep getting those spray cans? Today things are guided, and what a BB will face is no exception. Besides, every one who wants a BB lost :P. It’s too late. So let’s wait and see if the DDX can prove it’s worth.
April 11th, 2006 at 6:18 pm
A-18? Noooo. There’s never been an attack plane as ill suited for the role as that Hornet. It isn’t a pimple on the hairy butt of the A-6 it replaced. I call it an F-18 because it started out life as an F-5. The sad thing is, it was ok as a fighter then. As for these nimble little ships out maneuvering 200 mph torpedoes, what are you smokin’? They are both going to get hit. The difference being the DDX will sink like a stone when it is, the battleship will keep going. It’s not hard to figure out which one I want to be on.
April 11th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
Defens I said a decent replacement for the A-7. The first bird they replaced. Not even close to a replacement for the F-14 or A-6.
April 11th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
Wow… hell, next thing I’ll see is a call for the return of A-1 Skyraiders too! The F/A-18E/F is by far the better aircraft than the A-6, F-14, S-3, working together. As for air support: Firstoff, what would Naval Fire support be used for? At the end of the day, after the opening airstrikes from USN, USAF, and USAF bombers, there wont be anything nailed down and more threatening than a hot dog stand left standing. In OIF and in 1991, something like 90% of all enemy ground forces were pasted via airstrikes and rotary wing assets. So, there won’t be much buisiness for the BB. DD(X) might still be useful for pounding the beach and possibly any troublemakers that were dumb enough to put up a fight. But the DD(X) will have help, from rotary-wing and fixed wing USMC assets, and maybe help from the USN. Final verdict: Equip only MAUs with DD(X) to do an AA, ASW, ASuW, and NFS role. CG(X)s for CBGs.
April 11th, 2006 at 7:44 pm
The need for NFS is hard to dispute. If you really wanted to go into why the marines even HAVE a NFS fire support requirment, that is debate you can take up with them. The continued and historic use of NFS shold be tipoff. The ability of NFS to target so far in land means you don’t have be so reliant on aircaft. You dont have to risk pilots lives on tactical support missions. Having aircraft carriers and sorties avaible to do close support is not always a option during a wartime. Air support has a number of disadvantges, not to mention having a excess of aircraft- especially naval aircraft is expensive. The DD(X) is under armed, armored, andover priced for NFS. If we want a new blue-water destroyer fine, but at 4 billion a pop its questionable if its even worth it for that. Having aircraft do everything sounds, nice but it overlooks that aircraft don’t, can’t, and have not done all fire support missions. It also avoids the the tremendous adcances in arty technology that can allow a BB to to be cost effecive- with long rage gps shells. Saying that NFS isn’t needed because of airpower, but that DDG is going to ‘effective’ at NFS is a total condraction. NGS has been needed and will be needed- LR GPS shells allow it be more effective then ever. Its a requirment that the DDG is going to be ineffective at doing due to its relatively small shells, low ammo capacity, and low endurance- all for a incredibly high price.
April 11th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
scrip Are you reading old data? They haven’t been MAUs since the 80s (MEU). As I said, my data is from the pilots that fly the A-18s and train others to use it. As of my retirement in Jun 2003. Not some propaganda leaflet from the manufacture. You never have enough aircraft to cover the job. 1991 was abnormal because it caught US with a force for WWIII and an small enemy. We have been reduced extensively since then. The size of the airwings we have has been reduced because of the cost. As to the S-3, it was good as a supplemental tanker but was not a primary strike bird (ASW). It is not part of this discussion. The Navy strike aircraft used for 1991 were A-6, A-7, A-18, EA-6B, F-14. And airwings were 30% larger. Now we have fewer, smaller, and shorter ranged A-18 plus EA-6Bs (and no tanker support worth talking about). And you think the Marines want to depend on that? You must be using some good shit…
April 11th, 2006 at 8:02 pm
You mean F/A-18E? Cuz you seem a bit confused. I’ll stand by my numbers thank you very much. Let me tell you a story Sir. Before you bash the F/A-18E/F good name. Operation El Dorado Canyon, 1986. USAF F-111s were needed because the Navy at the time didnt have a bombing capacity neccessary to complete the mission. Scratch that… TWO CARRIERS didn’t have the bombing capacity at the time. Oh geez, those A-6Es really got the job done. It took USAF F-111s from England to help the squids out. Hell, they sent almost as many bomber aircraft to the party as the Navy did. So any arguments regarding that the USN’s strike capability isnt what it used to be, better realize that what took two Carriers and the USAF in 1986, can now be handled by a single flight of Super Hornets with SLAMs and JASSMs. Artillery: Someone said that air support isnt as reliable further inland… Well guess what! Marines have plenty of their own guns too you know! You guys act like we only send foot soldiers everywhere and they all carry M1 garandes. Welcome to 2006. Say bye-bye to 1950.
April 11th, 2006 at 8:17 pm
As I keep saying, Marines have thermobarics. No need for surface bombardment when you have a rocket or missile that can take out a building easily.’ The Marines have NFS support requirement. If your going to argue with them that they are wrong, I don’t see those arguments holding water. ‘And, it will constantly be overkill. A marine can not rely on a 16 inch shell for fire support, they are way too heavy. ‘ This make no sense- 16 inch guns can deliver payloads, faster, farther, and heavier then 6 inch guns. NFS can be there faster and when aircraft and other support can’t. Once again, long range arty shells trade warhead weight for range. Whatever size payload is effecive for a 6 inch gun- a 16 inch can put that much farther away. If the marines want smaller loads for urban combat, a BB can deliver as small as they want at much farther distances then a 6 inch gun can. ‘Besides, today we have blast resistant steel or paint. Before, you needed heavy armor.’ Even advanced paints only offer a tiny increase in protection for the types of attacks faced by ships. Steel- yes is ‘blast resistant’- but unfortunely the DDG uses far to little of it offer much in this regard. The upper structure of DDG, as well as other parts- are composite, not steel- Their only function in an attack will be as a burning funeral pyre to the billions of dollars and lives wasted on it.
April 11th, 2006 at 8:33 pm
And a missile hit to the superstructure of a BB leaves a blind ship. DD(X) solution is perfectly adequate for the USMCs fire support role. The GRAND PLAN is this: Combined USAF and USN airpower and cruise missiles launch a massive assault on enemy fixed target, armored divisions, and command centers. Secondary assaults or even some of the primary ones will take out air defense, airfields, and land based anti-ship missiles. Once this is all done, the enemy will be hurt bad. (thats an understatement) Then, the USAF and USN will continue attacking everything down the list. The USAF and USN shoots down the entirety of the enemy’s air force thanks largely to F-15Cs, F-22As, and F/A-18E/Fs. Then, after ALL that, the USMC moves in and begins hitting targets that are relavent to a landing. MV-22s drop Marines behind the beach. Maybe the 82nd or 101st is dropped further inland. Then AH-1Zs and Harriers (soon F-35Bs) pound the enemy on the beach. A few DD(X)s steam in off-shore and opens up its stealth guns and pound any occupied enemy positions. USMC lands heavy vehicles, tanks, artillery, and begin their push inland under the cover of the USAF, USN, and their own organic air assets. Game, set, match using overmatch.
April 11th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
skrip In accordance with official USN designations, it is A-18. F/A is not an official USN designator, inspite of the manufacture’s claims to the contrary. Use of the F-111s was a political decision. Not a tactical one. I had some good friends there. I heard all about the political BS that drove using UK based USAF aircraft in that strike. They had plenty of capability but, USAF wanted to play. Airwing composition of EACH of those two birdfarms was 24 F14, 24 A7, 14 A6, 6 EA6B, 4 E2C, 10 S3, and 6 SH3. Instead of 62 F14/A7/A6 we now have 50 A18 and the S3 contingent (tanker support) is gone. That is with USN embarking USMC squadrons to fill out the wings (not done btwn VM and mid-90s). A18s made a good replacement for the A7 ‘Light Attack’ Aircraft. It is not a good replacement for the A6 or F14. It just costs less to maintain. As to USMC Artillery, it takes time to move them and (more importantly) their ammo to the beach. That is why NSFS for landings is still required. To cover that gap and provide augmentation so that the grunts can save their rounds for when they need them further inland. Hence the USMC valadated requirement for NSFS, P.S. A1s made good COIN birds in VM and were in use in some Air Forces into the ’80s in that role.
April 11th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
Skrip, smart bombs have allowed any given aircraft to take out targets with far less sorties since the 1980s. However, the amount of sorties needed for air dominance and strategic targets is still going to dominate carrier use. Look how long the air-war phase took in even WITH smart bombs, and mor aircraf then we have today in 1991. Saying that aircraft are going to magically do everything is a cop out of the NFS debate. Aircraft, have not, don’t, and cannot provide all fire support missions- especially tactical ones. The Marines have a NFS requirement, period. Another aspect of the NFS vs. Air debate, is that with NFS you can put less pilots in danger. That in and of itself should be reason to keep serious NFS around. In 1991 all arty was basically ‘dumb’- which meant that arty- including NF
April 11th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
PS OIF had no significant air or air defense threat to deal with since we spent a decade bombing anything stupid enough to fire at us. The Gulf War never realy ended for those of us who were repeatedly deployed there…
April 11th, 2006 at 8:46 pm
In 1991 all arty was basically ‘dumb’- which meant that arty- including NFS’- I meant to finish that comment off by mentioning that Arty, as well as NFS can be much more accurate then it was. In other words, the same technology that saw a big leap in aircraft strike capability, is now being felt by arty (especially NFS). Being able to use ulra long range GPS guided shells means you can avoid doing a lot of aircraft sorties, and avoid the related aircraft losses.
April 11th, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Steve, never said aircraft would do all the work. But as far as Naval Fire support is concerned, the DD(X) does the job quite well, just see my above example.
April 11th, 2006 at 8:56 pm
skrip 101 or 82 dropped? 101 hasn’t been parachute qual’d since VM. AAslt is helo transported and using the birdfarms in that role removes them from air support or air defense. As to USAF TacAir, you cannot be sure that it will have basing/overflight available. Many times it has not been (usually for political reasons).
April 11th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
And a missile hit to the superstructure of a BB leaves a blind ship.’ Not necessarily, the superstructure on the BB is a very well protected area of the ship. Also, its made of steel, which means that a smaller hit can’t start a fire as easily. The composites on the DDG make it a death trap. In the Falklands war, even aluminum was liability. When hit by exocet missiles, high temperature aluminum fires broke which were deadly to the crew and very difficult to stop. If they had been steel, much of this secondary damage could have been avoided.
April 11th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
L/L from Falklands is why DDG51s are all steel construction. CG47s have aluminum superstructures. Funny how they keep trying out failed concepts.
April 11th, 2006 at 9:05 pm
18′ of armor around cmd and turret/mags for BBs.
April 11th, 2006 at 9:10 pm
Fitting all of the DDG51s with the lightweight 8′ gun turret in place of 5′ers made more sense than this overpriced DD(X).
April 11th, 2006 at 9:12 pm
But then Trent Lott would have to explain to his constituents why Ingalls had to lay so many people off…
April 11th, 2006 at 9:19 pm
Shipbuilding is important. We need it to keep the industry alive. Look what happened to our diesel sub construction capabilities. If you people think DD(X) is a bad idea now, how bad do you think itll be when China or Korea is building our Navy for us?
April 11th, 2006 at 9:43 pm
Steve, never said aircraft would do all the work.’ I would contend you have pushed idea, semantics aside. For example you have said- ‘Also, can someone tell me: With today’s aircraft and precision guided munitions, why would you ever need a BB or any Naval Fire Support vessel?’ ‘NFS is not needed. Thats why we have aircraft carriers boys and girls.’ Aside from Air, there is no other kind of fire support on a beachead. If you don’t have a viable NFS- then aircraft MUST do the work or its not done. You have said NFS is not needed- I disagree. I’m sure the Marines put SOME thought into their NFS requirement. The recent and historic use of NFS also suggest otherwise. ‘But as far as Naval Fire support is concerned, the DD(X) does the job quite well, just see my above example’ The DD(X) will do a totally inferior NFS job. Its poorly protected and poorly armed for NFS- with low endurance and a high price tag as well. Sending in a 4 billion composite cyber yacht on a NFS mission makes no sense at all, nor does it come close matching the capability of BB. To say we don’t need NFS, but concede that little amount we do need it is filled by the DD(X) contradicatory and wrong on both counts. Either we do or don’t have a NFS requirement. In fact we do, both the USMC have asked for it and Congress has mandated it. THe level NFS was mandated to be equivlent to the former battleships abilities- however, the DD(X) not even come close to meeting the requirement when measured by nearly every metric of NFS. In addition it fails while being billions of dollars over budget.
April 11th, 2006 at 9:47 pm
Steve, We had Copperheads for our 155mm arty in 1991.
April 11th, 2006 at 9:56 pm
I fail to understand why the Navy could not have designed a modern ship to meet the shore bombardment requirements at a reasonable price. A ship of the approximate size of a WWII light cruiser would suffice. Two banks of 8′ Naval guns (a modernized version of the autocannons on the Des Moines would be great), a couple of MLRS launchers, and all the latest air defense stuff. Maybe even a decent armor belt above and below the water line to make the ship survivable. They could use the latest tank armor tech. A ship like this could be built for far less than the $ billions the Navy seems determined to spend. It would also fulfill the mission unlike the DDX.
April 11th, 2006 at 10:07 pm
Shipbuilding is important. We need it to keep the industry alive. Look what happened to our diesel sub construction capabilities. If you people think DD(X) is a bad idea now, how bad do you think itll be when China or Korea is building our Navy for us?’ The alternative to building the DD(X) isn’t to build nothing, its to place orders for ships that have the right capabilites for the right jobs. Congress mandated a fire support requirement, the USMC wants there NFS. Yet the Navy wants to spend over 4 billion a pop on a ship that does not even come close to meeting those requirements. The argument we should buld the DD(X), despite it being the wrong ship, at the wrong price fails completely, because there are plenty of new ship designs that can and will support naval yards.
April 11th, 2006 at 10:19 pm
‘The alternative to building the DD(X) isn’t to build nothing, its to place orders for ships that have the right capabilites for the right jobs.’ Yeah, youll end up with DD(X) all over again. DD(X) and CG(X) are the same thing. One has more missiles, one has 2 AGS mounts. The USN did the right thing. You wanna know what a bad idea is? Relying on 60 year old relics, or building a vessel just for Fire Support. Thats a waste of money if Ive ever heard of. ‘The DD(X) will do a totally inferior NFS job. Its poorly protected and poorly armed for NFS- with low endurance and a high price tag as well.’ Poorly protected versus what? EXPLAIN THIS TO ME! Because, by the time it needs to get in close to support Marines hitting the beach, Im pretty sure the biggest opposition lies in submarines (which LCS handles), enemy artillery, and a couple of riflemen. Air superiority is in US hands backed up by DD(X)’s SAM/AEGIS system. USMC has organic air assets, which, at the time DD(X) arrives, will be comprised of MV-22s, UH-1Ys, AH-1Zs, and F-35Bs. Also, DD(X) is far more survivable and useful than a BB or dedicated fire support vessel ever will be.
April 11th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
A couple of cents worth. One hitting the superstructure of the BB. According to a former battleship Captain Larry Seaquist, ‘Larry told me (Tom Clancy) that someone had done a calculation of Exocet against the thickest armor aboard, that on the conning tower, whose armor is about 17′ (the exact length of my forearm on the doors; I checked it). Five (5) such missiles, arriving less than five (5) seconds apart at exactly the same spot*might* burn a hole through, the officer decided. Except that such precision is not to be expected.’ And what super protection does the DD(X) have? They ring the ship with explosives and pray that if they get hit, that 1) The ship does not blow up & B) They hope the power works, otherwise all of that automated machinery will fail and the poor 80 squids are going to have to take a crash course on swimming, becuase the ship cannot be operated manually. (cost cutting)
April 11th, 2006 at 10:47 pm
Also, DD(X) is far more survivable and useful than a BB or dedicated fire support vessel ever will be.’ I think I finally understand. Of all the services, it can be argued that it is Navy that has had the least amount of combat experience. Generally, during peace time all sorts of wacked out ideas come around. You know – cut training, short the weapon stores, have marine guards stand around with unloaded rifles (So as not to intimidate the suiside truck drivers) … and so on. Then you have a war, people die, and the idiots with the wacked ideas get shown the door, people get serious about what is real and what is BS. Take Vietnam with the air force going with ‘ we don’t need guns on planes, we have missiles! Dog fighting? never happen, we have missiles!’. Ok, a lot of good pilots got hurt over that – but the flip side is the airforce got serious and built the F-15, Red Flag… and so forth. Well long story short – no body has taken the Navy out to woodshed and beat the crap out of them in 50+ years. They are piling theory on top of theory to come up with some wacked version of naval war that defies logic. The DD(X)is only viable if you have around 20 of them. Then they can compliment each other and actually be a viable force outside of the carrier group. Now = that is not going to happen. No way, no how, not ever. What is going to happen is the Navy will get 2, maybe as many as 5. These DD(X)’s will be mated to a carrier and never leave it. As a fire support ship – its near useless. It can fire for 30 minutes and then its back to supply yard. If the Navy was serious about massive precision fire support – it would of built the arsenal ships. Cheap, with enough firepower to make a difference. Its really sad to watch the navy. They have their heads wedged so deep they can’t admit failure. The DD(X) is going to drain the budget and not add any significant capability. The F-18 is rapidly becomming a liability. The new fighters comming on line will mop the floor with them. How many F-18 jocks want to go up against a SU-37? The only thing the navy has got right is the LCS. I hope its enough.
April 11th, 2006 at 11:08 pm
Skirp, If supporting the yards is a reason to build the DD(X), even though it is the wrong ship for NFS and a waste, then it makes no sense to say building a dedicated NFS is wrong. The argument that if we can’t cancel the DD(X) and ask them to build a better ship because it will turn out the same, does not make sense. The naval yards can do produce different designs. Some of these go over-budget, or don’t meet requirments and end up cancelled, and some go into production. If the CG(X) is the right ship, for the right job, that is not a reason to worsen the deal by building a ship that is not needed. ‘Poorly protected versus what?’ That the DD(X) is poorly protected versus a iowa class a battleship. Congress mandated that the Navy maintain NFS equivlent to the BBs and the USMC has layed out a pretty heavy duty NFS requirement. I believe that the DD(X) is niether equivlent to the BBs abilites in this area or adequate for the USMC requirment. The Navy has snubbed its collective nose at them both with DD(X), IMO. It is a unforgivable mistake that will likely be paid for in the lives of sailors and marines.
April 11th, 2006 at 11:40 pm
Well Steve, thats why I’m glad people like you aren’t in charge. Because so far, the ideas I’ve seen here, and the reasons behind them are just plain foolhardy. We dont need a Battleship for Naval Fire Support. DD(X) is the perfect ship for the job. And all the money going into it also pays for CG(X) in part. So quit whining about it costing so much. Also, I expect the Navy to buy at maximum, 20 of them, and at minimum 16. Then fill the rest of the slots with CG(X)s. I think these are tax dollars well spent, and that we are getting our money’s worth.
April 12th, 2006 at 12:07 am
Also, I expect the Navy to buy at maximum, 20 of them, and at minimum 16.’ No – you are dead wrong. The navy currently touting its 313 ship fleet plan. To which it is being described as unrealistic. http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,85654,00.html Yet even that plan does not call for 20 DD(X)’s. ‘Surface Combatants The Navy’s plan would buy seven DD(X) destroyers at a rate of one per year starting in 2007. The Navy has stated that it hopes for the first two ships to cost $3.1billion each and the next three, $2.4 billion apiece. However, CBO estimates thatthe cost of the first ship would be $4.7 billion and that the average cost for the seven ships would be $3.6 billion (see Table 1). http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/71xx/doc7105/03-30-Navy_ShipBuilding.pdf
April 12th, 2006 at 12:39 am
We dont need a Battleship for Naval Fire Support. DD(X) is the perfect ship for the job.’ I would contend the opposite of that statement is correct. The DD(X) is will be disaster waiting to happen if used for NFS, and grossly inferior to the BB. That said, we will at some point need a next-generation blue-water destroyer. Im not conviced how good it, or the CGX will be even in that role. At least out at sea they will be able to make better use of their sonar and radar.
April 12th, 2006 at 1:05 am
I forgot to mention one thing. Very true about the copperhead round, I was wrong to say there was no smart arty in 1991. I had heard of the copperhead, but I did not realize they were used in ‘91.
April 12th, 2006 at 7:18 am
No problem Steve, I know because I was on a Forward Air Control Team. Close Air Support (fixed wing) and Close in Fire Support (helicopters) is risky for pilots and aircraft so we don’t use it unless their is no alternative such as mortars, arty, or naval gunfire. Whenever our team passed an artillery unit, we would ask them what they have for special rounds – especially Copperheads and the extended range Rocket Assisted Projectiles (RAP). The old heavy 8′ inch guns that came off the pre-positioned ships did not have the laser guided shells (no sure if they were ever made for the 8′). All the 155mm batteries I talked to had them. If you need to kill a tank, a Copperhead is much safer than an aircraft. The arty tube fires a single shot and tells the spotter when to illuminate the target with the laser designator. The armor penetrating shell coming down at a high angle is a sure kill on any tank. Frees up the fly-boys to do other things. This is why grunts are suspicious of an Air Support only solution to fire support.
April 12th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
Get busy for a few days and see what happens: I completely miss a battleship debate. Of course, the answer is uavs.
April 12th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
Remember ‘Shock and Awe’? The new Navy version is ‘Sticker Shock and Awe’.
April 12th, 2006 at 10:07 pm
Did the 1.7 billion cap per ships (after intital) get passed for the 2006 defense budget. In early documents they mention the house version had it, but the senate did not- but I can’t find if it passed.
April 12th, 2006 at 10:44 pm
You guys are right. The USN doesnt need more than 8~10. 4 in the Atlantic Fleet. 6 in the Pacific Fleet. Since Fire Support requirements are pretty minimal these days, we dont need too much of them. Seems like the QDR played right into the USN’s hands. Have the DD(X) program carry the brunt of developement costs, then cut it short. Then build CG(X)s on the cheap. Brilliant. Hey, why don’t any of you ever play Devil’s Advocate? Try defending the DD(X) for once, and then maybe you’ll get a better appreciation of it. Thats how I went from anti-stryker nazi, to stryker lover. And BB-lover to DD(X)/CG(X) lover. Also, I would like to propose the Navy use a new designation system for warships. DD(X) is definitely NOT a destroyer. Its a cruiser in all respects.
April 12th, 2006 at 11:24 pm
Geez, it seems as if everyone has their own little axe to grind. Also, everyone seems to have their preferred weapons delivery platform. There is a lot more to a ship than throwing bombs at the enemy, and then trying to protect yourself from theirs. I was stationed on both a Spru-can and a Perry mini-can. They both had their serious weaknesses. Biggest weaknesses were not enough missiles (for those of you who think it’s spelled missle) and shells. The guns were too small and too slow. The crappy Sea Sparrow on the Spruance destroyers was a joke, and the SM-1s on the Perry frigate had a ridiculously short range. The communications equipment was antiquated. Forget about blast protection. A .50 cal. could put either of them out of action. They were designed to fill a role for many functions other than fighting a war. Escorting carriers, freighters, Radar picket, sub hunting, etc. The Navy has learned a lot from their mistakes and short-sightedness, and it seems to have finally learned how to design ships to both fight in various arenas and to defend themselves. A destroyer covers an extraordinary number of roles. It needs to be able to fight in a battle group, or by itself without the benefit of air cover. I think that the Nav has finally done it’s homework in designing a ship to perform every function and to do it well. The smartest thing that they have done is to design the ship as an integrated system, and not a hodge podge of incompatible equipment. They have put an extraordinary amount of research into the electric drive system which will make this ship many times more reliable than even a gas turbine powered one. The consolidation of electrical systems will also save a huge amount of space. Speaking of space and manpower. The Spruance ship that I was on had over 400 people crammed into a ship designed for 270. I hope that the Navy finally realizes that a ship can easily be automated to run with far fewer people IF there is additional outside support for repairs and IF they get rid of all the stupid archaic functions common to all ships which waste tremendous amounts of manpower. Things like having multiple watchstanders in port, poorly managed mess facilities, outdated equipment with excessive maintenance requirements, etc. I’m tired of jabbering away, and it’s late. The navy has made a lot of mistakes over the years, but I hope that they will get it right this time. Chris Parrish ET1 1979-1989 USS Ingersoll DD-990 USS Crommelin FFG-37
April 12th, 2006 at 11:42 pm
I hope so too. And from the looks of things, they may work out quite well.
April 13th, 2006 at 1:18 am
Steve – It looks like the Navy got out of the ‘1.7 billion cap’. However, instead of getting 7, they got budgeted for 5. (2) in 07 (3) 1 in 09,1 in 10,1 in 11 http://public.secnav.navy.mil/FY07.nsf/($reload)/8525711F000FDA098525702800434181/$FILE/DD(X)+2119+.pdf Now dispite Skrips, happy Navy talk. The orders in 09-11 are more in theory then reality. Basically congress gave Bush a going away present of 2 DDX’s but left the future of the plan in the hands of the next administration. (Read) If the Democrates win – death to DD(X) Procurementwise the Navy has two many new shiny balls in the air. You have the DD(X), LCS, the Virgina and CVNX. Basically all 4 Navy Mofia’s have a shiny babble to protect. There is going to be blood in the halls.
April 13th, 2006 at 1:56 am
No there wont. The USN needs to replace the Ticonderogas, and Arleigh Burkes. They decided to build an LCS-writ large with the DD(X)/CG(X) hull. The US doesnt need to many DD(X)’s. I’ll be happy with 8 to 10 of them, so we would have enough in both oceans for fire support duty. Then fill the rest of the billets with CG(X)s. LCS has the L for a reason, and cannot do DD(X) or CG(x)s job. The USN needs to do this: Cut carriers from 12 to 10. Build some LHXs for the USMC. Retire the Ticos and ABs and replace them with CG(X)s, LCSs, and some DD(X)s. Buy more Virginias. We have no choice in the matter. We either buy these ships, or watch our naval capability get deep sixed.
April 13th, 2006 at 2:16 am
Skrip – ? The LCS is not based on the DD(X) hull. The Navy has not even settled on a single hull. Last I heard, they are going to build two versions and will see which one is better. DD(X) 8 to 10? – Fantasy land. A) Not even the Navy in its wet dreams is thinking that they are going to get 8 DD(X). They will be lucky to get 4. There is not going to be any big budget increases for the Navy. Not with a 460 billion dollar deficit and a ground war going on. CG(X)? Total vaporware – but what is being written is not too comforting. From Global Security ‘The CG(X) would be derivative of the DD(X) design, but with a more powerful radar than the DD(X), as well as additional missile tubes in the place of the DD(X)’s AGSs. The CG(X) might be somewhat larger than the DD(X), and would have a procurement cost equal to or greater than that of the DD(X). ‘ Oh boy – love those savings. Mostly – The AB’s are going to get some serious life extensions and the LCS are going to get busy.
April 13th, 2006 at 3:05 am
DDG51s are all less than 17 years old. CG47s are all less than 25 years old. All of them have and are planned to remain in service for 20 years(+) more. (35-40 year hull life is normal and planned for.) The gun turret for the DD(X) was designed to fit in the same base ring as the 5’54s mounted on all of our DDG/DD/CGs. What has never made sense is why they didn’t do what was originally planned and up-gun all of our smallboys with the new gun or the lightweight 8′ gun that was also developed for a NSFS and also designed to fit in the same ring as the 5’54s. That would give a NSFS capability equivalent to or better than DD(X) to all of our surface ships except the frigates (LCS). And get rid of Trent Lott’s gold plated pork project – DD(X). As to adding to the big deck gators. We have 12 already. One Marine carrier to go with each Fleet carrier. A good mix and 2 more than the Marines asked for. (Curticy of Trent Lott’s porkbarrel politics. His house was just down the street from Ingalles in P-guala until Katrina hit.) P.S. The reason I know the guns were designed originally as an upgrade is that I spent 4 years on CG48 while they were designing and testing and attended some of the briefs on their capabilities in P-goula.) Retired USN
April 13th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
P.S. The 9th Wasp LHD is under construction which will allow a Tarawa LHA to be transfered to reserve for use as Mine Warfare Support/Command Control Ship. Considering the Navy/Marines only asked for 5 Wasp LHDs and all 9 of them were/are built at Ingalls, I would say we have sufficient redundant gator capability for Marine support. (Trent Lott spending your taxpayer dollars and keeping his neighbors employed.)
April 13th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
Ooh, electric drive and stealth. We coulda had that in the ’80s (sorry for the redundant link). In fact, we could have had considerably more stealth and a crew of 10 or 20 instead of hundreds. Maybe the Navy will work its way up to 1980s technology before the end of this century. Have I told you the one about how defense contractors don’t really want to build ships and planes and things? They don’t. Why should they? They make profit on development. It’s like free money. The DoD dude asks, ‘how’s that design coming along?’ We answer, ‘just peachy,’ and get a big ol’ check. If you build something, there’s a chance, a darn good chance, the thing won’t work. Thanks anyway, but we’d rather get paid to do development. That’s why F-22 took 25 years to develop. That’s why F-35 is taking so long. That’s why we’re spending a fortune on DDX development only to build a handful. You taxpayers are such suckers! I gotta’ love ya’ though. Keep those checks rollin’ my way.
April 13th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
If UAV are going to take the place of manned aircraft for fire support missions, we have a ways to go. If we had a LHD loaded up with hell-fire armed predators, that would be something. However, we aren’t going to want robats deciding when to press the ‘red button’. That means weather its a some mini helo with a machine gun, or a huge UAV bomber, you have to a have a person in the loop. Which entails having a com link. If our abilty to provide air support is dependent on communitcating with a fleet of UAVs, that is a serious and glaring deficeny. Granted, this is a vunlerability of any unit, but when UAV have especially high bandwidth and quality of reception requirements (e.g. live video feed and data), rather then, say a few coordinates.
April 13th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
I came up with a reason for keeping the BB’s. What is the protection provided for GPS satellites in space? All the stuff currently uses GPS, these satellites could be destroyed. What about hacking? Is there a software upgrade link possibility on these satellites? ie. a vulnerability
April 13th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
Ok, just a little note of reason here….$5 billion dollars for a 1 to 2 gun platform….are you guys nuts? How much does a fully stocked aircraft carrier cost? If you want long range support…a cruise missile only costs a $1 million dollars. Thousand of cruise missiles for the cost of ONE of these ships….and cruise missiles have up to 10x the range AND a larger payload. Or, A modified Boeing 777 – with rotary bomb dispensers loitering over an area for many hours, carrying tons of JDAMs. Cheap (comparatively), efficient and you can forget about worrying if you’re with-in a 100nm of the shore. Besides, how long would it take a ship to cruise to the region to be on station, verses a jet….days verses hours…. Also, we ALWAYS have air dominance anyway.
April 13th, 2006 at 9:02 pm
Well they canceled the arsenal ship, which could have been very usefull as a mobile missile battery (500 plus VLS cells, etc.) (mainly because of the cost of the SC-21 (the orignal DD-21, cruiser, etc. program and it (the arsenal ship together were deemed to high). The SC 21 program, as it was planned also got totaled. Congress cut its budget by 75 percent. So the navy basically shrunk the DD 21 down, and cut capability- this is what resulted in the DD(X). The DD(X) and CG(X) aren’t some grand plan of the Navy, they are the result of multiple ship cancellings and meddling by congress. DD(X) as it is currently envisioned as only been around for a couple years or so, and the planned CG 21 is different from the CG(X) as well. As for being over- reliant on GPS- yes, anti-satellite weapons would probably play a big role in any world war 4 that breaks out.
April 11th, 2006 at 11:59 pm
Proof of CG(X) and DD(X) cost cutting measures: CG(X) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cg-21-schem.htm DD(X) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/dd-x-schem.htm So the Navy is wasting money how?
April 14th, 2006 at 8:43 pm
The first thing Iran will do with a nuke is explode it in the magetosphere and fry all our satellites and high tech sh–. Then we’ll be up a creek. But we’ll have $10B composite stealth ships with reactive armor. That’s what’s really important. Won’t they look pretty?