"He explained that DD(X) differs from the Navy's current class of destroyer, DDG 51, as DD(X) will be built from the keel up for these littoral operations, while the DDG 51 class was built to operate on the high seas."
Posted on 07/21/2005 12:06:25 PM PDT by faq
Testifying before the House Armed Services Committee's Projection Forces Subcommittee July 19, Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Vern Clark strongly urged Congress to fully fund the Navy's next generation destroyer, DD(X).
Clark testified along with the Honorable Kenneth J. Kreig, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics; Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition John Young; and Rear Adm. Charles Hamilton, program executive officer for Ships.
The CNO began his opening statement by thanking those House members in attendance for their support.
"Thank you for the chance to be here, and I appreciate the fact that all of you are here, investing in this discussion, and by doing so, investing in the national security of the United States," he said.
He also said he felt it was a particularly important discussion, one that "we need to have, so we can get this very important ship and its tremendous combat capability off the drawing board and into the fleet."
The tone for the testimony was set early, as Clark stated that, "For the record, I am unequivocally in full support of the DD(X) program. It is time to get the next generation of capabilities to the fleet," he stated.
"The projected threats - both conventional and the ongoing war against terrorism - absolutely requires this kind of capability."
Clark made his strongest point when he said that failure to build this next generation of capabilities comes "at the peril to the future sons and daughters of America who are going to serve in the United States Navy."
He pointedly described the peril ships face while operating close to shore, describing those operations as taking place in "the most challenging maritime battle space, the contested littoral."
He explained that DD(X) differs from the Navy's current class of destroyer, DDG 51, as DD(X) will be built from the keel up for these littoral operations, while the DDG 51 class was built to operate on the high seas.
"We need DD(X) for the type of things it will bring to the fight," Clark explained. "These capabilities include persistent and long range power projection to the fight without a permission slip; 80 missile cells - and not just for today's tactical Tomahawks, but tomorrow's hypersonic missiles."
DD(X) is also automated to reduce crew size to 114 Sailors. "In addition to enabling the U.S. Navy to fight and win against future threats and reducing the combat risk to the men and women serving in our nation's Navy, the DD(X) manning reduction achieves operational cost savings of $13 million per year per ship compared to a DDG," Clark noted in his written testimony.
Other capabilities that DD(X) will bring to the fleet are a 10-fold improved capability against anti-ship cruise missiles, 10 times the operating area in shallow water regions against mines, and improved naval surface fire coverage.
According to Clark, one of the most critical capabilities DD(X) will have is a 50-fold radar cross section reduction compared to the current class of destroyer. Clark clearly spelled out what advantage this will bring to the battlespace.
"If you're an adversary of the United States of America, looking for a DD(X) will be like looking for the proverbial needle in an American haystack," Clark said. "With the capabilities inherent in DD(X), the enemy's going to have to be sucked into our network to ever find out who we are," he added.
Clark said that that he is more convinced now than ever before that DD(X) is a ship that the Navy must build, and that this kind of consistent combat capability is a must-have in the fleet.
"I'm also morally bound to do all I can do to provide for and protect the men and women in the United States naval service - those who are serving now, and those who will serve in the future," he emphasized, "and provide them with the means to win in combat, and that is what DD(X) is all about."
Clark finished his opening statement by stating for the record that "DD(X) is a warfighting imperative. The United States Navy needs it now, and the technological door that it opens to the future."
Yeah Baby
Doesn't look remotely like any grey hound I ever rode, but the song from the head of the quay remains the same: "If you ain't Tin Can, you ain't $%^&!
GOOOOOO NAVY!
Waste of money. There is not threat to our Navy that would justify a need for this expediture. Heck, nobody else has a worldwide naval capability.
"DD(X) will be built from the keel up for these littoral operations, while the DDG 51 class was built to operate on the high seas."
--- Littoral, as in on or near a shore? Why would we build a stealth 'gun boat' that would only be suitable for operations near to land?
I thought that the purpose of the cruise missile, smart bombs etc was so that our sailors could be far away.
"If you're ... looking for a DD(X) will be like looking for the proverbial needle in an American haystack," Clark said. "With the capabilities inherent in DD(X), the enemy's going to have to be sucked into our network to ever find out who we are," he added.
--- Does the high tech stealth stuff work on the mark 1 eyeball now?
"The projected threats - both conventional and the ongoing war against terrorism - absolutely requires this kind of capability."
--- If our new destroyers are to operate near land, aren't we assuming that the enemy has no coast defences and has their targets near to the sea?
If the purpose is to support the WOT then they would presumably be used for interdiction and then board / search operations against suspected terrorist vessals (unless we just blow them up as we suspect them). Would we really put these expensive ships next to suicide bombers when a couple of CG cutters are cheaper?
If the purpose is to land raiding parties to attack terrorist or other enemy camps, I would think that a submarine would be stealther. Maybe more payload on a DD than an SSN, but I'm not sure how much of a difference.
There is probably more to the story, but my first impression is that it is a budget looking for a purpore.
If the reason for the DDX is to keep some level of ship building, that is fine with me. Just be honest about it.
New U.S. Navy ship has 15,000 flawsPASCAGOULA, Miss., July 13 (UPI) -- The prototype of a U.S. Navy amphibious ship that's two years late and $400 million over budget logged 15,000 deficiencies in sea trials
Under construction in Pascagoula, Miss., the San Antonio, a helicopter and troop transport scheduled for delivery to the Navy this year, "is an incomplete ship," the Navy's Board of Inspection and Survey wrote after the trials.
It is the first of 12 such ships on order from Northrop Grumman's Ingalls shipyard, and will be stationed in Norfolk, Va., the Virginian-Pilot said Wednesday.
The 8-page report said the ship is plagued with bad wiring, inadequate ventilation and corrosion problems, and cited ladders that were improperly constructed or missing handrails, unventilated spaces housing toxic chemicals and a crash-prone engineering control system.
Cost overruns have put the ship's cost at $1.85 billion. The 684-foot ship weighs nearly 25,000 tons and will have a crew of 360, and be able to carry 700 Marines and their new MV-22 Osprey transport aircraft.
Good points. I originally came across an article on Yahoo that says the Navy wants to build 8 to 12 ships at an average cost of $2.6 billion. (Yikes, what does it cost to build an aircraft carrier?) So, I found this article to help describe some of the capabilities. I like the idea of a ship with only 114 sailors though. And it looks cool. Looks kind of like a WWII submarine. I'm not a Navy person, but I would be surprised if they build it.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050720/pl_nm/arms_ddx_dc_2
I'd rather have subs
Just NOoooooo damn fun! No damn fun!
Must from Washington, one of Uncle Sam's Misguided Children, or a Bubble Head.
It supposed to be "Sailors have MORE fun", but if you get your way it'll be "Sailors have NO fun".
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.