Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New U.S. DD(X) destroyer sails ahead
Reuters via Yahoo ^ | Jim Wolf

Posted on 11/23/2005 3:10:05 PM PST by Pharmboy


The deckhouse of an experimental naval destroyer, the DD
(X), pictured here at China Lake, California in an undated photo.
The Pentagon has opted to move ahead with the new multibillion-
dollar destroyer being co-developed by Northrop Grumman Corp. and
General Dynamics, Navy officials said on Wednesday.
(Handout/Reuters)

The Pentagon will order an initial eight highly-automated DD(X) destroyers being developed by Northrop Grumman Corp. (NYSE:NOC - news) and General Dynamics (NYSE:GD - news) as the centerpiece of the U.S. Navy's 21st century fleet, a defense official said on Wednesday.

Ending speculation the ship might be killed, the Defense Department cleared a plan to let both Los Angeles-based Northrop and General Dynamics, Falls Church, Virginia, each go ahead with detailed design work, the Pentagon said.

The chief U.S. weapons buyer, Kenneth Krieg, also approved "low rate initial production" of eight ships after a meeting on Tuesday of the Defense Acquisition Board, which considers major weapons systems, said the defense official who asked not to be named because he was not authorized to speak about the matter.

He estimated the value of the eight ships at $20 billion.

The DD(X) will have substantially lower radar and acoustic "signatures" -- making it harder for an enemy to find and hit -- and be highly automated to cut crew size by more than half compared with current destroyer levels.

It will incorporate new technologies that also would be used in a new aircraft carrier and a new cruiser. The Navy hopes the first DD(X) will be delivered in 2012.

Cheryl Irwin, a Pentagon spokeswoman, confirmed that Krieg had cleared the program to enter a big-money phase known as "system development and demonstration." But she said she had no information on the number of ships to be built.

No construction contracts would be awarded until a further session of the acquisition board, the defense official said, citing a memorandum from Krieg that was not made public.

TWIN BUILDING PROJECTS

Navy officials said Krieg had cleared a Navy request to start the acquisition program with a "dual lead ship" strategy using fiscal 2007 funds.

According to this Northrop and General Dynamics each will build a ship of its own to meet requirements set by the Pentagon and the Navy, Navy spokesman Lt. John Gay said. On completion, the Navy will recommend whether to continue splitting the construction or go with one of the two yards.

Such a decision may be made in 2008 or 2009, said the defense official. Each of the two initial ships to be built -- one by each yard -- is projected to cost $3.3 billion. The Navy hopes to drive down the price of future ships to $2.2 billion.

Krieg gave the go-ahead after a "Milestone B" review -- the decision on whether to let DD(X) advance despite expected delays or cuts in other big-ticket weapons programs as the United States copes with war costs, a growing deficit and hurricane relief, among other headaches.

Key senators had blocked the Navy's earlier-proposed "winner-take-all" approach to building DD(X), which it said would cost less, on the ground it likely would knock the losing company out of the business of building surface warships.

The Pentagon's DD(X) decision "takes us through a critical threshold," said Randy Belote, a spokesman for Northrop, which would build its version of the ship at its Pascagoula, Mississippi, shipyard.

General Dynamics, which would build at its Bath Iron Works yard in Bath, Maine, had no immediate comment.

Northrop shares fell 16 cents on Wednesday to close at $56.49 on the New York Stock Exchange. General Dynamics's shares rose 2 cents to $116.16.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: ddx; defense; navy; warships
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-74 next last
Sounds good to me...
1 posted on 11/23/2005 3:10:05 PM PST by Pharmboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

If this ship lives up to its billing, its going to be "superfreaky", like the F117 was to aircraft. This thing will be a new and unique design which will make it very stealthy and also use rail-guns.


2 posted on 11/23/2005 3:12:13 PM PST by jbwbubba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jbwbubba

Ooooh...oooooh...rail guns. I wish they'd let me have one here in NJ.


3 posted on 11/23/2005 3:14:40 PM PST by Pharmboy (The stone age didn't end because they ran out of stones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jbwbubba
and also use rail-guns.

That will be Superfreaky!

4 posted on 11/23/2005 3:16:09 PM PST by operation clinton cleanup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All
How you like her?


5 posted on 11/23/2005 3:16:18 PM PST by Pharmboy (The stone age didn't end because they ran out of stones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jbwbubba

Excellent. We're going to need to strengthen the fleet for the day when we go at it against the Chinaman.

More Carriers, more Submarines, more Surface Combatants.

Nothing brings a bigger smile to my face than the thought of a thousand burning Chinese ships floating to the bottom, full of trapped and dying heathens made aware, at the last moment, of the true price of challenging American power.

Admittedly, I almost prefer the idea of Japan kicking China's ass alongside the United States, simply for the added irony.


6 posted on 11/23/2005 3:16:25 PM PST by furquhart (Gingrich '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

My question is this...." What did Hurricane Katrina do to the ship yards in mississippi?" can they build a ship there?


7 posted on 11/23/2005 3:17:16 PM PST by Walkingfeather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

It'd be sweet if she could submerge.

I've always wondered how hard it would be to build an aircraft carrier that could submerge. Imagine the looks on the enemy's face...


8 posted on 11/23/2005 3:17:52 PM PST by RandallFlagg (Roll your own cigarettes! You'll save $$$ and smoke less!(Magnetic bumper stickers-click my name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: namsman

Ping!


9 posted on 11/23/2005 3:19:46 PM PST by SW6906 (5 things you can't have too much of: sex, money, firewood, guns and ammunition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

To: RandallFlagg
I've always wondered how hard it would be to build an aircraft carrier that could submerge. Imagine the looks on the enemy's face...

...not to mention the looks on the pilot's face as he tries to land. LOL!

11 posted on 11/23/2005 3:25:39 PM PST by Pharmboy (The stone age didn't end because they ran out of stones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Certain_Doom
Better yet, an aircraft carrier that could fly.

USS Akron (ZRS-4)

12 posted on 11/23/2005 3:33:24 PM PST by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Certain_Doom
Better yet, an aircraft carrier that could fly.


13 posted on 11/23/2005 3:34:15 PM PST by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

bump


14 posted on 11/23/2005 3:39:15 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Looks like the Merrimack the Monitor's foe from the Civil war.
15 posted on 11/23/2005 3:40:15 PM PST by carumba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
He estimated the value of the eight ships at $20 billion.

Nuclear subs would be cheaper. Just slap a 6" gun on the deck like the WWII boats.

16 posted on 11/23/2005 3:40:42 PM PST by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: furquhart

Why do that? If the Chinese ever tried a large scale invasion across the Pacific, tactical nukes would be a far more efficient way to stop their fleet. In the middle of the ocean you also don't have to worry about pesky fallout and lingering radiation after the fact.

Ships like this should only be a second line of defense, to take down the few lucky ships that make it though our nuclear barrage unscathed.


17 posted on 11/23/2005 3:44:45 PM PST by Arthalion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RandallFlagg; Pharmboy
Funny you should mention it:

From the March 20, 2005 Honolulu Star-Bulletin:

UH team locates huge Japanese sub

Researchers discover the wreckage of a giant underwater aircraft carrier scuttled after WWII

http://starbulletin.com/2005/03/20/news/story1.html

18 posted on 11/23/2005 3:45:09 PM PST by SmithL (There are a lot of people that hate Bush more than they hate terrorists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz

You took the picture right outta my head! :)


19 posted on 11/23/2005 3:45:11 PM PST by The Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
The pointed Bow kind of reminds me of the Confederate Ironclad "Virginia".


20 posted on 11/23/2005 3:45:34 PM PST by Wiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

I don't like the Bow it looks like it would plow and dig in to the waves


21 posted on 11/23/2005 3:46:34 PM PST by al baby (Father of the beeber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jbwbubba

Currently they are planning on a two gun mounts using
155mm LRRAP(long range rocket assisted projectile).

Range is expected to be 100NM for the first generation land attack round.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_61-62_ags.htm


22 posted on 11/23/2005 3:47:06 PM PST by RetiredSWO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: furquhart

ships floating to the bottom


wtf?


23 posted on 11/23/2005 3:47:21 PM PST by al baby (Father of the beeber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jbwbubba
and also use rail-guns.

No. 155s.

" The vessel's two 155mm guns will be able to fire up to 100 nautical miles at a sustained rate of 12 rounds per minute. "
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/dd21/

24 posted on 11/23/2005 3:48:12 PM PST by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

The Navy hopes to drive down the price of future ships to $2.2 billion.

I don't think they'd have any trouble getting them quite a
bit below that if they ordered a thousand of them...


25 posted on 11/23/2005 3:48:29 PM PST by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wiggins

Musta been some southron boys designed that.


26 posted on 11/23/2005 3:49:14 PM PST by Pharmboy (The stone age didn't end because they ran out of stones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Certain_Doom
Better yet, an aircraft carrier that could fly.

The navy used to have a pair of them.

27 posted on 11/23/2005 3:49:25 PM PST by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Wow! I never heard about those.

Leave it to the Japanese.


28 posted on 11/23/2005 3:51:12 PM PST by RandallFlagg (Roll your own cigarettes! You'll save $$$ and smoke less!(Magnetic bumper stickers-click my name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Arthalion

You are forgetting about Naval Gunfire Support for land forces.
After all something has to replace the Battleships.


29 posted on 11/23/2005 3:51:20 PM PST by RetiredSWO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Certain_Doom
Better yet, an aircraft carrier that could fly.

Heck, we did that already - a long time ago! Here she was in all her glory, preparing to recover 2 of her aircraft:

More info here.

And for all you Freudian Freepers, the image of hangaring an airship like the Macon beats the stuffing out of the tired 'train into tunnel' imagery - at least for me ...

30 posted on 11/23/2005 3:51:37 PM PST by IonImplantGuru ("Me? You talking to me? You talkin' to me? Then [BLEEP]... Well, I'm the only one here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ProudVet77

Ping!


31 posted on 11/23/2005 3:51:51 PM PST by RunningWolf (tag line limbo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doohickey; judicial meanz; submarinerswife; PogySailor; chasio649; gobucks; Bottom_Gun; Dog Gone; ..
Not sub-related, but of Naval interest.


Steely-eyed Killers of the Deep PING

32 posted on 11/23/2005 3:55:13 PM PST by IonImplantGuru ("Me? You talking to me? You talkin' to me? Then [BLEEP]... Well, I'm the only one here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #33 Removed by Moderator

To: Arthalion

Across the Pacific?

I'm thinking more of this happening in the South China Sea, the Straits for Formosa, or the Sea of Japan.


34 posted on 11/23/2005 3:55:33 PM PST by furquhart (Gingrich '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: PAR35

They have cut the rate of fire to 10 rds/min.
However with the wide variety of projectiles available
the kill capability has greatly increased.


35 posted on 11/23/2005 3:55:57 PM PST by RetiredSWO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: al baby
Chinese ships heading to the bottom, in case that wasn't clear.
36 posted on 11/23/2005 3:56:16 PM PST by furquhart (Gingrich '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Arthalion
Ships like this should only be a second line of defense, to take down the few lucky ships that make it though our nuclear barrage unscathed.

I'm glad you're not in charge of our military strategy.
37 posted on 11/23/2005 3:56:18 PM PST by birbear (Admit it. you clicked on the "I have already previewed" button without actually previewing the post.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: furquhart
Excellent. We're going to need to strengthen the fleet for the day when we go at it against the Chinaman.

They likely have already stollen the design or paid the Democratic party for it.

38 posted on 11/23/2005 3:57:51 PM PST by FreeAtlanta (never surrender, this is for the kids)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: IonImplantGuru

That thing is going to look pretty snazzy on Periviz.


39 posted on 11/23/2005 3:58:09 PM PST by Doohickey (If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice...I will choose freewill.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

The Navy certainly needs next generation firepower but I think the DDX is $20B of "winning the last war technology." The next war between two technical nations will be won by the side that masters the battlespace with thousands of unmanned drone weapons, both sea and airborne. If I were taking bets on this Death Star from Pascagoula vs 300 inbound stealthy drones, I'd bet on the drones.
If you take China for the next contender (another good bet) there are a lot of things pointing towards this type of warfare. The US and Israel have proven drone technology in battle, including low cost ultra-small drones. It has been our method to use them in individually and in small numbers, but think of the evolution of air warfare from the solo dogfights of 1914 to the 1000 planes bomber masses of 1944. The war in Iraq has shown the continued vulnerability of conventional weapons and tactics to asymmetrical attack. China has massive manufacturing capability with increasingly high technology. Should they put their mind to it they would have no problem producing drowns in the hundreds of thousands. Anyone familiar with Chinese infantry tactics knows that despite modern reforms they still love the human wave approach. It won't take much genius to convert the old tendency sending 5000 infantrymen charging up a hill to sending 5000 drones toward an American carrier battle group. The Soviet Union trained to make an attack on a US carrier battle group and hopefully overwhelm its defense with dozens or hundreds of anti-ship missiles. Luckily we never had to see how that would have worked. In the period since then close in weapons and ship defenses have been greatly improved, but next generation drones will be very small, very maneuverable and hard to hit. We train and design weapons to stop a mass inbound attack but I fear that number of bogies we are capable of stopping may be off by factor of 10 from what can be launched at us. It is not just the Navy who needs to make this paradigm shift. Air Force bases, masses of ground troops and even individual aircraft in flight or armored vehicles may become the targets of these swarms.


40 posted on 11/23/2005 3:58:27 PM PST by azcap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

I am very certain rail guns don't spout flames - other than that looks like a Civil War Ear ironclad.


41 posted on 11/23/2005 3:59:51 PM PST by mad_as_he$$ (Never corner anything meaner than you. NSDQ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RandallFlagg

Japan did that in WW2. The look on our faces wasn't pretty.


42 posted on 11/23/2005 4:01:06 PM PST by mad_as_he$$ (Never corner anything meaner than you. NSDQ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Polybius

Or the updated version - Galactica.


43 posted on 11/23/2005 4:01:51 PM PST by mad_as_he$$ (Never corner anything meaner than you. NSDQ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: IonImplantGuru
Snagged a piece of the Macon, South of Monterey on a fishing trip once.
44 posted on 11/23/2005 4:03:56 PM PST by mad_as_he$$ (Never corner anything meaner than you. NSDQ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$

Ear=Era. alas spell checker.....


45 posted on 11/23/2005 4:05:27 PM PST by mad_as_he$$ (Never corner anything meaner than you. NSDQ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

The article headline is a bit misleading. The technology of the IJN I-400 submarine class, impressive as it was (even more so since the Allies didn't even know about them until after the war), was more along the lines of large aircraft-carrying submarine vice "giant underwater aircraft carrier."


46 posted on 11/23/2005 4:13:30 PM PST by Captain Rhino (If you will just abandon logic, these things will make a lot more sense!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Certain_Doom
It may yet happen:

It's a proposed airship called the "Walrus" and the Army is looking at the feasibility of such a ship. It would be over a football field in length as per the graphic above. Check it out at Gizmag.com

47 posted on 11/23/2005 4:16:05 PM PST by Reaganesque
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: IonImplantGuru

Bubbleheads get the nookie, eh?


48 posted on 11/23/2005 4:19:10 PM PST by Pharmboy (The stone age didn't end because they ran out of stones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$
Snagged a piece of the Macon, South of Monterey on a fishing trip once.

At what depth? My understanding is MBA unmanned submersibles had photographed one of Macon's Sparrowhawks (more or less intact!) on the bottom amidst the wreckage but IIRC, that was several 1,000's of feet down.

Here's one of Macon's F9Cs 'hooking up' after a scouting sortie:

49 posted on 11/23/2005 4:27:38 PM PST by IonImplantGuru ("Me? You talking to me? You talkin' to me? Then [BLEEP]... Well, I'm the only one here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: azcap

Interesting strategery. Mebbe you should see HR at the Pentagon...


50 posted on 11/23/2005 4:29:19 PM PST by Pharmboy (The stone age didn't end because they ran out of stones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-74 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson