The Navy’s New DDG(X) Destroyer Might Be ‘Sinking’ Fast

National Security Journal ^ | 8/27/2024 | Brent M. Eastwood

[whyilovetexas111]

You may be familiar with the debate about aircraft carriers – that they are too expensive to buy and maintain. Perhaps the aircraft carrier is obsolete, and the Navy should focus on building more frigates and destroyers.

Yet another debate is brewing up involving the DDG(X) program, in which the Navy wants to build a new class of guided missile destroyers by the 2030s.

And, sadly for the Navy, this new warship class is getting its share of bad press and doubtful commentary.

[whyilovetexas111]

Can't the navy actually get something right? I feel like every day I read about a big warship-class mistake they made those costs us all billions of dollars.

[srmanuel]

Is Boeing now in the ship building business ???

[ClearCase_guy]

Weapon system acquisition is largely about transferring money from taxpayers to defense contractors. Actually acquiring weapon systems is not the focus.

[wildcard_redneck]

Corruption and incompetence is the feature of an empire in its last days.

[3RIVRS]

Anyone like this author, who thinks the is “plenty” of time between now and 2032 to work out the kinks in a first of class ship acquisition program doesn’t know squat about first of class ship acquisition programs.

[butlerweave]

Building them from recycled razor blades and tin cans ?

[hillarys cankles]

After reading that article, I have no doubt the Navy will end up ordering a couple dozen of those things, wasting tens of billions of dollars. The govt doesn’t care about how much money they waste. Theres no reason to do the right thing, just whatever will fatten up their buddies pocketbooks.

[Leaning Right]

> Corruption and incompetence is the feature of an empire in its last days. <

Yep. Plus the debasement of money. I suppose there was always a bit of corruption in the US government; corruption is a feature of every government.

But we’re now in the triple-threat phase. We’ve got all three in abundance.

So it’s Trump or bust.

[uranium penguin]

We should save a bunch and just sub the building out to China..

I’m sure they already have the plans.

And we’d probably be buying all the materials to build from them anyway. Just avoid the hassle of bringing those over.

[Governor Dinwiddie]

Hey, all that matters is that the defense contractors get their cost-plus contracts! Nothing else matters.

[desertsolitaire]

Is our weapons procurement process so dysfunctional that we cannot do better? It is not always better to have a few very very expensive shiny weapons and hope they all work and don’t get destroyed right away than to have oodles of capable weapons and a military strategy and leader who inspires recruits to join. I’m not even sure that forcibly drafting people would improve the numbers and quality if the potential draftees don’t respect how the military is run to begin with.

[Bonemaker]

Didn’t we just hear Navy took 14 ships of the line out of service in Pacific ostensibly due to lack of manpower?

[The Klingon]

17 MSC ships

[doorgunner69]

Is that the new destroyer they can’t afford any rounds for the single gun it has??

[Jim Noble]

Build the Montana class.

Perfect for Yemen.

[ClearCase_guy]

You may be thinking of the Zumwalt Destroyer — originally called DD(X). A few of those have been built and are at sea — but, yes, their primary armament (an advanced gun system) is problematic because of the cost of the ammo. This article is about what they used to call a Guided Missile Cruiser. The article calls it a Guided Missile Destroyer. These are planned but not built.

[Ingtar]

Every time I see something about new weapon systems, I think of the Bradley. I know the Pentagon Wars is not nearly accurate, but I would not doubt the real process was even worse.

[Getready]

Could a MOAB detonated at above 500 feet up, disable a destroyer or frigate?

[Phlyer]

. . . the Navy will end up ordering a couple dozen of those things, . . .

Probably not. If they did, they'd at least get a couple dozen ships.

The Navy's practice is:
1) Continue building one class of ships until they can cry about how out of date they are - meanwhile getting some good ships.

2) Pack all the latest toys into the replacement ship, which grows and grows in both size and cost.

3) Build just three of the oversized/overpriced ships. Always three.

The first post-WWII class of USN destroyers was the Mitscher class, which was bigger than most WWII cruisers. They built three.

The first post-Los Angeles class submarine was the Seawolf class - bigger and better than anything that had gone before. They built three.

The first post-Arleigh Burke class of destroyers was the Zumwalt class - bigger than most WWII cruisers. They built three.

I did a study once (when I was still a working engineer) and found out that military systems (fighters, destroyers, tanks) are bought by the pound. The number of dollars per pound changes with time (always goes up) and by systems (aircraft are higher dollars/pound), but for any particular time, there is a dollars/pound number and it applies to all similar systems.

The way to get affordable, cost-effective systems is to have someone with strength of character be the program executive, and then have him be ruthless about keeping the size down. The cost will follow.

As an example of how this works, the Virginia class of submarines is 2/3 the size of a Seawolf, costs about 2/3 as much, and is at least as effective.

[Carriage Hill]

“Perhaps the aircraft carrier is obsolete...”

It is, and has been, for years.