DDG(X) Assessment
The DDG(X) destroyer is beginning to get pinned down in terms of capabilities and appearance. Below is a concept drawing taken from an official Navy presentation graphic.
Understanding that this is still not a final design, let’s see what a visual assessment offers in the way of positive and negative features. Has the Navy learned any lessons? Have they been reading this blog?
Positive Features
Superstructure – The superstructure is noticeably smaller than in previous ship designs. This will decrease radar, infrared, and optical signatures. One can see that the smaller superstructure has the effect of increasing the usable deck space with a notable large flat area amidships that may house a VLS cluster or other weapons. The fact that the structures still stretch the full width of the ship is disappointing but the overall reduction is a net positive.
It’s interesting to note that the various power related air intakes and exhausts make up a significant portion of the superstructure. If those could be eliminated or substantially reduced due to rerouting to the waterline or substituting a different power source than the common turbines, the ship would achieve a marked decrease in superstructure size and signatures.
See, “Ship Superstructures” and “Top Heavy”
Hull – The Navy has, wisely, abandoned the tumblehome hull form of the Zumwalt which had some significant operating restrictions regarding certain sea conditions and decreasing wetted area as the ship settles/sinks which has negative implications for survivability. That the Navy abandoned the tumblehome hull should be telling us everything we need to know about that hull form, right?
Negative Features
Weapon Density – The weapon density appears appallingly deficient. It looks like the ship will have 2x 32-cell VLS, 1x 5” gun, 1x laser, and 2x RAM. That’s a pitifully meager amount on a ship that size.
Fantasy – The Navy appears to be counting on a laser for significant defense despite there being no actual demonstrated laser capability. This is delusional and has no place in a useful, effective, realistic design.
Close In Defense – Close in defense appears limited to the two RAM launchers with 21 missiles each. Unless the Navy has some super-secret, Star Wars type laser ready to go, the laser is limited to possibly disrupting a small quadcopter and will be completely ineffective against missiles. Potentially worse, the two RAM launchers have a limited engagement zone of about 120 deg to either side with substantial blind spots directly forward and astern. RAM requires targeting from the ship’s fire control system and I don’t know whether it can engage targets the missile’s sensor can’t initially see. Normally, the launcher is fired facing directly at the target.
The Navy appears to be discounting close in defense. You’ll recall that the Zumwalt class has no close in defensive weapons!
Illuminators – It’s hard to tell from the blurry drawing but it appears that there are two fire control illuminators atop the aft superstructure and one atop the forward superstructure. The aft pair are located side by side with what appears to be just a few feet separation in violation of every precept of survivability. A single hit in that area would eliminate 2/3 of the ship’s fire control illuminators – a horrible design flaw. Worse, the illuminators are located just feet away from one of the two hot exhaust outlets which will be major heat seeking missile targets. This is just bad all around.
Questionable Features
Aviation – The ship appears to have a larger hangar for enhanced aviation. The question is what type of aviation? An additional -60 type helo or Fire Scout is useless. This ship will not be risked conducting ASW and Fire Scout is not survivable. If the additional space is intended to support small surveillance UAVs, then the space would be a positive development.
Summary
All in all, the design is a decidedly mixed bag of positives and negatives. Clearly, the Navy is not learning any lessons and, if this design holds, will produce a very sub-optimum vessel that falls well short of a true WARship.
Caution/Disclaimer – The drawing is just a concept drawing. The final design may be quite different, however, I suspect that the drawing is fairly set and accurate, at this point. If it does turn out to be substantially different, we’ll re-evaluate.
