Sweet. My Popular Mechanics cover story, “The Great Weapons Debate,” is finally online. Everyone’s favorite gazillion-dollar destroyer plays a starring role. Here’s how the piece starts:
The attack would come quickly, and it would be awful. Cruising far offshore, the U.S. Navy’s DD(X) destroyer launches 20 artillery shells in less than a minute. As the satellite-guided weapons fall back to Earth at 830 mph, computer algorithms alter their flight paths so that the 250-pound projectiles all strike the same patch of ground at the same time, reducing everything in the vicinity to rubble and dust. If more firepower is needed, the destroyer can unleash another 580 artillery rounds, as well as 80 Tomahawk missiles. And when the attack is over, the ship simply vanishes. On a radar screen, the DD(X)‘s stealthy hull makes the 14,000-ton vessel look like just another fishing boat, casting its nets into the sea.
Just one thing is missing from this scenario: an enemy to fight. Targeting terrorists with the DD(X) is like smushing ants with an 18-wheeler, critics say. Attacking an Iranian nuclear facility is something American bombers can do today. “The DD(X) is the most revolutionary surface warship in decades,” says John Pike, director of defense think tank GlobalSecurity.org. “But I have yet to have anybody explain to me–point to a place on the map-and say what they propose to do with it.“
On the surface, the country’s main military goal is clear. “Our nation is engaged in a global war on terror that affects the safety and security of every American,” President George W. Bush told an audience of Idaho National Guardsmen last August. “We’re using all elements of our national power to achieve our objectives.” So you would think the Pentagon’s $70 billion annual weapons systems budget would focus on winning the war on terror. But a look at the arsenal the Pentagon is building tells a different story.
Inside the defense establishment, the war on terror has competition. In many minds, the real threat is a rising China. But containing China requires different weapons than breaking up Al Qaeda–weapons that were designed for Cold War-style fights. Out of a $70 billion budget, nearly $10 billion a year goes to ballistic missile interceptors originally designed to stop Soviet missiles; $9 billion to next-generation fighter jets meant to take on MiGs; $3.3 billion to new tanks and fighting vehicles; $1 billion for the Trident II nuclear missile upgrade; and $2 billion for a new strategic bomber. Eventually, the Navy is projected to spend $4.7 billion each for seven DD(X)s.
I hope you’ll check out the whole thing. I’m also honored — more than honored — that former Assistant Secretary of Defense Bing West decided to contribute an accompaniment to my article, on how we can “Invest in Our Troops.” Be sure to take a look at that, too.
UPDATE 12:01 PM: DD(X) makers Northrop Grumman have a very different take on the ship, of course. Here’s a video outlining their case.
UPDATE 12:04 PM: One of the things you find, looking into these big weapons programs, is how how quickly justifications for the systems shift to meet the times. The DD(X), for example, went from a land attack specialist to a commando-delivery ship. The Army has a similar repositioning under way. Now, Future Combat Systems — the Army’s new array of robots, sensors, and ground vehicles, originally meant to take on another big military — is being pitched as a disaster relief program. Check out the Army’s “Aftershock” video to see what I mean.
UPDATE 12:15 PM: Just so we have an air component to this video assault, check out this promotional flick of the Joint Strike Fighter.
I have a question regarding DD(X).
Like the F-35 benefits from the lessons and technology developed for the F-22A, the F-35 is invariably cheaper.
So won’t the same argument apply to CG(X)? From what I read and understand, CG(X) will be the same as DD(X) sans the AGS (the big guns). In place of these guns, more missile will be added, and possibly a small deck gun for surface engagements. The vessel would replace the current Ticonderogas and would also use the SM-3 in their role within the NMD program.
So, since CG(X) will use the same hull-form, sensors, electric drive, PVLS, and layout, wouldnt it be far cheaper?
Wouldn’t we be getting two classes of ships for the price of one? The DD(X) would be more expensive, but also be used in lesser numbers. Possibly ranging from 10 to 18 vessels. This way there is enough fire support available should the need arise. Whereas CG(X) will be the most numerous component, replacing the Arleigh Burke and Ticonderoga.
This would also reflect historically the use of the Spruance’s hull in later Ticonderoga class vessels in order to cut costs and speed up developement.
Big War vs. WOT.
While I agree with the article’s views on fighting the more important conflict, I really can’t see that as a reason to cut spending in other project areas. When you think about it, the WOT is pretty low tech, relying more on information than brute force. However, conventional forces still play a major role.
Future Combat Systems = Like It or not, I don’t buy the hype. In my mind this program is a bunch of projects unified under a name and a radio system. However, I will consider it a success if this happens:
25 ton Self-Propelled Howitzer, 40 ton MBT (with protection on par with the M1A2 SEP), 25 ton IFV, etc. etc. The M1A2, M2A3, and M109 will need to replaced sooner or later. Hopefully what results are vehicles that protect US soldiers, provide adequate firepower, and last for many years.
The F-22A Raptor. Like it or not, we need this aircraft. If we didn’t need it, the time to cut this program passed many years ago. But now we have it, and its ready for service. The current F-15C fleet is aging pretty badly. They have higher maintenence costs and have reached the limits of their upgrades. The F-22A should be bought in numbers around 200 aircraft. While one F-22A is equal to 10 F-15Cs, it cannot be in the same place, nor maintain the operational tempo as 10 F-15Cs.
Current Russian exports are now on parity with current F-15Cs. Many nations can and will own these aircraft in the future. The technological advantages of these aircraft will form a level playing field which may result in the loss of US airmen in future conflicts.
The Humvee. I have a solution for it: Stop using it for roles it was not intended for. Aside from this, the ULTRA AP looks good. Slap a CROWS on top and you have a great replacement.
But, what we can use in the Big War can also be used in the small ones too. M1A2s arent fighting tanks in Iraq, yet their usefulness is quite apparant.
Just because were trying to eliminate the terrorist threat, doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t stay 100% prepared for the possible war with china.
But the ships should be able to change/adapt to there current mission. This ship could be used for a big war, or shooting shells at terrorist camps, or used with the more realistic war…with Iran.
As for the CG(X)…now called the CG-21, hopefully the DD(X) lowers its price tag…but ya never know.
I think the 10 billion for the ballistic missile shield is money down the toilet. All that money should have being invested in R&D in solid state lasers…since thats the only realistic method to destroy ALL missiles fired your way.
DD(X) Schematics:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/dd-x-schem.htm
CG(X) (or CG-21) Schematics:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cg-21-schem.htm
Skrip,
You’re right about the relationship between the DD(X) and the CG(X). The DD(X) was always intended to explore a new hull and propulsion/power system that would serve as the basis for future warships.
This is not BS. The Spruance destroyer hull and powerplant from the 1970s was adapted to the Kidd destroyer and Ticonderoga cruiser. The Tico combat system, in turn, was adapted to the Burke destroyer.
I support DD(X) mostly for its R&D value. Our surface fleet is actually in pretty good shape in terms of age and numbers. The submarine fleet, on the other hand, is ageing and shrinking.
The way this is all going to shake out is probably something like this: DD(X) will be procured in numbers fewer than 10, at a unit cost of more than $2 billion. CG(X) will be cheaper and more numerous.
Remember that DD(X) doesn’t directly replace any of our current classes of warships. It actually fills a new niche while overlapping with certain capabilities of existing ships. That niche is stealthy land-attack. So we don’t need 62 DD(X)s to replace 62 Burkes, or 22 DD(X)s to replace 22 Ticos. We need as many DD(X)s as will keep sufficient numbers of hulls forward deployed to support the regional commanders. Ten is about right.
Later, CG(X) will directly replace the Ticos. As for what will replace Burkes … we haven’t seen that yet and won’t (and don’t need to) for a couple decades.
I think the DD(X) program should ultimately go the route of Seawolf (SSN-21): built a few fully-functioning vessels (like 6) as proof-of-concept, then scrap the class in favor of using the technology on more cost/mission-effective platforms. For a Fleet-defense Cruiser class we’d have the tech and the open slots in the shipyards, and for Destroyers we would have options. Putting the Sensors, AEGIS 2, and AGS on a Burke flight-III would get my vote, they’re excellent platform. But for Gnu’s sake leave the inshore work to LCS, Stiletto, or Cobb’s hovercraft gunboats.
On the wider WOT/BW debate: Actively preparing for only “likely situations” is how we’ve burned ourselves in the past. The modern US military is has to be flexible: not just flexible in chasing down guys in SUVs but flexible in being able to fight any enemy anywhere. Sure, there’s a good possibility that China won’t have the major economic collapse or political upheaval that triggers the Big War scenario, but I don’t want to be caught without Heavy Armor, Stealth, and Carriers if it does happen.
Mooser, the primary concern with the Arleigh Burke is its lack of growth space. You wouldnt be able to mount such systems onto the vessel because there is no room.
I agree with making DD(X) in limited numbers. CG(X) and DD(X) are essentially the same, differing in certain weapons loadout.
Also, Ticos are getting old, and AB Flight I’s are as well. If we don’t build DD(X) and CG(X), then we’ll be sending our Queens of the Sea out alone… =(
Before I get jumped on: I realize adapting AGS to the AB in place of it’s 5″ would take considerable work and not just be a direct swapout. My point was the Burke Hull could accomodate an AGS without a keel-up redesign.
” … map-and say what they propose to do with it.“
That’s easy, make a bunch of money for defense contractors, that’s what it does.
Moose makes a good point: the submarine community did good in abandoning the Seawolf in favor of the cheaper and more suitable Virginia, which does leverage Seawolf technology without the expensive muscle needed to fight Soviet nukes.
Of course, as a result, the Silent Service did take a decade off of shipbuilding while it readed the Virginia design, which means it faces a serious sub shortfall in around 20 years when all the Los Angeles boats age out without there being enough Virginias to replace them. CNO Adm. Mullen’s fleet roadmap sees the attack sub force eventually dropping to around 40 versus the necessary 48. It’s hard to quickly make up 8 boats when they cost a billion bucks apiece and take several years to build.
The surface fleet must avoid this problem by building steadily and keeping the design wheels turning. So if there’s going to be a keel-up replacement for the Burkes, we should get designing it soon so that we can start fielding it in 15 years or so, when the first Burkes start leaving service.
Building DD(X)s is one way to bridge that gap, even if we only build a few — and even if they’re really really expensive.
DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class Zumwalt?
I tend to ignore suggestions that big systems like the DD(X) and the F-22 can be used for spec ops/counterinsurgency/WOT as just idiotic attempts by the Pentagon to bend with the current wind. Instead, I look at the DD(X) and the scenarios it’s likely to be used in, and here’s what I come up with:
1. Inshore, it’s a big, expensive target for swarming attacks by land-based missiles/drones or supercavitating torpedoes from quiet, cheap D/E subs. I don’t care how “stealthy” the hull and power plant is, or how sophisticated it’s air defenses are: it’s a very expensive sitting duck without an array of air and underwater platforms around it for screening and defense. The LCS makes much more sense here: being cheaper, more expendable and more flexible, as the article suggests, although staying power is a real issue with the LCS.
2. Land attack: arsenal ship redux? How many times can one say “there are better, cheaper, and safer ways to provide fire support than a multi-billion$ destroyer?“
2. Offshore — what is it supposed to attack? the PLA fleet? Fleet actions died 50 years ago and aren’t coming back.
3. Research platform? While I understand the DD(X)‘s value for developing new technologies; if that’s it’s primary feasible use, let’s call it a research vessel, and not “our major new surface combatant.“
When all’s said and done, I think that Mr. Axe reads the tea leaves on this one most accurately.
Good article, Noah.
The problem of a shrinking force due to rising cost issues, coupled with an increasing NUMBER of global commitments and threats to address, is a recipe for failure.
FYI, there have been studies around mounting an AGS in a Spruance Hull — it’s doable, albeit with significant platform compromises. My question is why build a $3.5 billion destroyer to deliver ordnance 100 miles in land when a $300 million LCS equipped with its NETFIRES missiles can put similar fire on target 70 miles away now and also offers a small, stealthy hull form. Each LAM or PAM missile costs more than a LRLAP shell, but not oh so much more and look at the platform differential. So do a bit of R&D and extend the missile’s range, add submunition payloads, etc. Or research the drone swarms Noah was talking about. Then instead of 5 DDG-1000 Zumwalt’s (the likely final number, incidentally), you could have 30 LCS ships with “good enough” capabilities and the ability to reconfigure to take on other missions in numbers and over multiple areas.
And since NETFIRES will also be a ground weapon, the R&D done for the Littoral Combat Ships’ armament also strengthens the Army. No similar benefit from the Zumwalts.
The only thing 5 Zumwalts get you that 50 LCS’ do not is very long-range air defense capabilities that include anti-ballistic missile capabilities. But you know, the DDG-51 Arleigh Brikes already do that — and really, the capability gap between the CG-47 Ticos and the DDG-51s is small. You could replace the Ticos with slightly improved Burkes and be fine for a long time, while Littoral Combat Ships proliferate and so do add-ons for them. The more add-ons, the cooler and more indispensable the LCS ships get.
I also look at what folks out there are building, and even today, over 20 years after the DDG-51 Arleigh Burkes began entering service, there are damn few new ships being built now that come close. The only ones are Australia’s SEA-4000 and Korea’s KDX-III, both incidentally based in part on DDG-51 designs and neither built yet.
I know all that stuff about new DD(X) hull designs and power plants and all the rest. And it’s all great. and I’m just not sure it matters so much that it’s worth dropping to a 200 ship fleet to do it.
The DDX Zumwalts strike me as a huge mistake and wate, whose funds would be better off buying LCS ships, Stilettos, modular stuff that can be snapped on to both or to other Navy ships, and R&D around sea-basing.
Sea Basing is a fantastic and truly transformation idea, but with stuff like the DD(X) sucking the procurement air, it isn’t moving forward. The toys at the expense of the serious stuff. The big target at the expense of the swarm.
And the Fuzzy Wuzzy Fallacy is remoseless.
N.B. Fuzzy Wuzzy Fallacy = a man with firepower 2x is not worth 2 men of firepower x, because all are equally mortal when hit. The differential is *the square root* of 2. Ask the German Wehrmacht how that goes. For weapons systems, substitute firepower/capability and note that unless they’re 10 times more resistant to being killed, fielding the “10X” weapons system is often a recipe for failure in battle (that’s why the M1 Abrams, for example, is an exception that worked — because it’s ALSO dramatically harder to kill).
Aside from the individuals playing tag with enemy bullets (whose concentration is on more immediate topics), there are generally two schools of thought regarding combat: The generals who are still fighting the last war and the visionaries concerned with winning the next. The author is obviously enamored of the former.
While elements of scale may differ, what might the outcome of the ‘War to End All Wars’ been if the attitude had been ‘our marksmen are more than adequate, automatic weapons (machineguns) will cost too much and waste too much ammunition’? What if the Battleship Admirals had succeeded in having their way in the 1930s and 40s, and we were forced to face the Japanese with only those battlewagons that had survived Pearl Harbor…if any?
For that matter, anyone with two live brain cells to rub together and the attention span of a mayfly knows — whether or not he admits it — who we may well be fighting by the mid-XXI Century, and that their technology is — at worst — only one generation removed from ours (although we won’t point any fingers of blame at the last President of the last century), because they were BUILT from ours. As a concept, the DD(X) looks good on paper, but until it’s built, there’s no guaranty that it will ‘work’ as promised…if at all. The time to find out is NOT the day after it’s needed. If there are ‘bugs’ to be worked out, let’s do it before it becomes imperative they work. As to building more than one, there’s something known as ‘economy of scale’: Multiple units always have a lower per-unit cost than individual ones. Since there is, however, finite application for the weapons system, there is no need to overbuild — enough to deploy what’s needed where it may be needed, for as long as the necessity exists, is adequate.
There seems to be some question on necessity of advanced aircraft. In any conflict, if you do not have air superiority, you have lost the war. This has been the case since the airplane has been invented. In the latest insurgencies in Iraq, some of the latest technology is closer to the ground, that is the street light cameras, imported from Chicago gang land. Do you think all the capacities of this new ship or any weapon are non-classified? The US military would be fools if they used the any more capability of any weapon if it does not have to. “Look at what I got” please…
Are the DD(X) and other advanced weapon systems we(America) are building similar to systems developed by the Germans during WWII? (Tiger II and ME262 come to mind)
Seems to me most wars are won with “average” equipment in massive qty and very good training.
I would love to see us have the F-22, JSF and DD(X) for example, but I’d hate to see us win battles but loose the war(?). Also, how does this type of equipment apply to the terror front as well?
I worked for the company that has been selected to suppy the ships electric power & propulsion plant. I can say first hand that the prime contractor has definitley got a long way to go in developing specifications and requirements that are:
1)understandable
2)implementable
3)cost effective
At this stage we are looking at a “Charlie-Foxtrot’ waiting to be funded. Do we really need this thing?
I think the DD(X) is designed to counter the emerging threats of the 21st century. The LCS is geared more towards the war on terror with its ability to operate in shallow waters and close to land. To me DD(X) and LCS are apples and oranges. The DD(X) can deliver far more firepower. The DD(X) perhaps is better suited to take on nations like China or North Korea. Wars are no longer won in sheer quantity of forces. 30 LCS does not equal 5 DD(X) if the capabilities and technology are different. Putting AGS on an outdated hull is too much of a compromise because it would not have the stealthy technology. What good is the AGS if it can easily be blown out of the water? The Chinese and Russians are ahead in missile technology. Their radar guided sunburn missile which travels at very high speed can defeat our current shipboard missile defense systems. I would rather see a balanced navy which has ships capable of dealing with threats such as this. I would rather we spend the money on programs such as DD(X) and be prepared for the emerging threats than not spend it or make too many compromises along the way and not have the technology available when it is needed. Just because the war on terror is the primary focus today does not mean it will be in a few years or decades away. Conflict is avoided by having the best technology available. DD(X) will put us at the forefront of naval design.
Two Zumwalt class destroyers have been funded. It appears they are intended to protect oil tanker shipping in the Persian Gulf from the possibility of an Iranian blockade in the future. There is a real possibility of war between Iran and Israel at some point, given that both are nuclear powers or soon to be (Iran will have nuclear weapons in less than five years, and Israel has had nuclear weapons for many years). The United States will most probably be drawn into that conflict at some point. Destroyers would be the most effective craft in such a conflict to keep the Persian Gulf sealanes open for traffic.
Crazy. 3 billion dollars on a very limited ship class. We need to reactivate and modernize the Iowa class, all FOUR of them if possible. Mount 2 61 cell clusters of MK41 VLS (122 cells) Take off the 5/38s and replace them with the newer, lower manpower 5/62s. 4 of the latest block of CIWS. Do some smart ship planning to remove unnescessary crews in engineering and you will still be under 3 billion dollars for a robust, all-weather attack surface platform for the 21st century. One that does have to fear minefields or torpedoes ( not SAYING they wont hurt it, just saying that they are far more resistant to the magic BB affect of a cheap easy mission kill from one ) A ship that can get in close, take some damage if nescessary, complete its mission and get back out again, without risking expensive ($300 million per copy) next generation attack aircraft, ala F35 Lightning 2. The loss of just 4 aircraft would probably pay for 1 ship! These ships can show the flag ( and how! ) perform NGFS ( and how! ) and some CVN roles. Absolutly true that they need escorts, but so do CVNs. ALl of the capital ships from the beginnings of the steel navy needed escorts and IOWAs wont be any different. But at about 1100 crew per ship versus 5000+ on a CVN, there is your manning savings right there. Give it an escort of a CG47 Tico, and 2 flight II DDG51 Burkes and thats about all it would need. It carries enough bunkerage to act as its own tanker, so it can spend and extended amount of time in the upper Persian Gulf, refueling its escorts as needed. It also has extensive repair shops so it doesnt need a forward-deployed tender.
SO what you have is a fast ( 32+ knot ) capital ship, that can deliver round-the-clock ordanance, that cannot be jammed or decoyed. Deliver Tomahawk, Harpoon and possibly RAM and Seasparrow through VLS. ( I couldnt see why not Standard MR through link 16 ) A self-sufficant, floating armory which is also a tanker. So many roles in a combined platform. The navy has never been accused of being completely smart! It just want to get rid of the competition for the DD21 and nextgen CVN.
The LCS and DD(X) cannot be compared at all. They focus on two different jobs. The LCS will operate in squadrons of say 3 ships and assist tactical operations in LITTORAL!!! areas. It can switch mission packages to deal with any tactical threat. The DD(X) will operate in a more strategic sense. It will be constantly cruising around waiting until it is needed. It will operate as a deterrent force and will be able to close in and support shore operations from over the horizon while remaining stealthy. It will sorta be like the boomers. The threat of one can deter attacks and since it is stealthy you don’t always know where it is. Unlike the boomers it is very flexible and can take out most feasible threats (feasable as in physical attacks like missiles not the political environment). When operating as part of a carrier battle group it will destroy surface threats and subs while the CG(X) covers air defense. Meanwhile the carrier sends out its super hornets and JSFs and beats the living s*** out of the enemy whoever they are. As you hopefully see neither the LCS nor the DD(X) can fulfill the others role. This is how I see the roles of the two ships. Just my 2 cents thanks for reading.
Why the hell do we need a stealth ship? If it’s radar signature is the size of a fishng boat, an advanced antiship missile can still take it out. More tax dollars goin to waste…
Actually these ships are supposed to replace two Iowa class Battleships, which is in my mind, utterly stupid since these thigns only shoot off a 24pound bursting charge and the iowa’s shoot 16in projectiles that weigh 2240pounds to 2700pounds, and a 2700 pound shell would rip a modern destroyer in half! Now for the ammunition for the battleships is senseless in arguing since newer projectiles could be purchased for the battleship today like Ramjet projectiles which have been successfully tested at 100nm (nautical miles). which the advanced gun system these idiots are making can only reach at 59 nautical miles, and at the same time lacks sheer firepower. so if these 4–6 ships are supposed to replace two battleships, and a whole classes of destroyers, just what the hell are we doing in this world!, and simply since when does a battleship get replaced by something that is littorally 10x weaker than itself and unable to take a hit even from a single 5in shell without getting injured let alone cripped! and a battleships can do everything that destroyers and cruisers can do but on a larger scale, so just what the hell is going on?