|
|
|
|
|
I've written before about the US Navy's new destroyer, known as DD(X). It's slated to replace the Arleigh Burke class of destroyers, which had replaced the WWII era Spruance class. As you can see, the US doesn't churn out lots of new ship designs.
But the DD(X) is more than a mere upgrade, it's a massive leap forward in technology and capability. Incorporating stealth technology, it's designed for littoral as well as deep water combat.
DD(X) is designed to be the quietest surface ship in the fleet. The ship will be quieter even than the Los Angeles class submarines.
It's sneaky.
DD(X) will employ a first of its kind Peripheral Vertical Launch System (PVLS). Missiles are typically stored in clusters at the center of a ship. PVLS, by moving those clusters to the hull, will provide the ship with something reminiscent of the reactive armor fitted to the M1A2 Abrams main battle tank. The PVLS concept has already been successfully tested, and will make this ship significantly less vulnerable to sea-skimming missiles.
It's harder to hurt.
Each 155mm gun will fire a Long Range Land Attack Projectile (LRLAP). The LRLAP has already been successfully tested to 83 nautical miles. Though it only carries 24 lbs of high explosives, the Advanced Gun System (AGS) is fully automated and holds a magazine of 300 rounds. With a rate of fire of 10 rounds a minute, the AGS should be able to provide the volume fire capability the Navy so desperately needs, and with GPS-guidance the LRLAP will be extremely accurate.
It can hit targets at long range. But how accurate can it really be at those ranges?
Tests have shown the guns accurate to within two meters at a range of 68 nautical miles.
Make sure you let the gunner know which corner of that executive desk you want to hit.
But wait, the DD(X) only has two guns, and each gun only firing once every 6 seconds, that's not much of a heavy punch.
...each gun will be capable of putting up to eight rounds on a target simultaneously. To achieve this effect, shells will be fired in rapid succession at different trajectories.
Lob one, aim lower, lob one, aim lower, lob one, aim lower, and so on. And they all hit the target at the same time. Sixteen booms. Isn't that four batteries of artillery?
The gun magazines can also be reloaded at sea and while the gun is firing. Oh, and those shells cost 1/20th of what a cruise missile costs.
The crew is half the size of the current DDG class, which will also offer up significant savings over the life of each vessel. The first two are scheduled to be active by 2012. These look to be sweet additions to the fleet, plus, future improvements are already being accounted for.
The Navy hopes to fit these ships with an electromagnetic rail gun by 2020. The rail gun would be capable of firing a guided projectile up to 267 nautical miles, which would put all of North Korea into range from either coast of that peninsula (or, to take another theoretical example, allow the Navy to bombard Paris from the English Channel).
DD(X), coming soon to a shore near you.
Thanks to Robert the Llama Butcher for the pointer. He's got more links at his place too.
Posted by Ted at September 9, 2005 12:11 PM | TrackBackWhile the DDx has a lot of new technology, some are dubious about its introduction to the fleet. (In particular, most of the commenters over at murdoconline.) Part of the problem is the cost. At a billion per unit, it is an expensive boat. For the price of one DDx, you could get significantly greater numbers of LCS (Littoral Combat Ships - in one variation, nifty little catamarans with missiles and sensors) or other ships. More ships are more survivable for the fleet as a whole, and more flexible in deployment. And with modern communications, they can all fire as one big battery.
There have been cost overruns as well, and fears that the long range gun does not live up to the hype.
I think that in the end it will be a decent ship, and we'll probably build several of them. But with increasingly accurate smart munitions coming down the development pipeline, the bigger the ship the bigger the target.
Posted by: buckethead at September 9, 2005 01:36 PM"The bigger the ship, the bigger the target"
True, but the bigger the ship, the more likely to survive a missile hit (or two or ten).
There will be a place for all of them in the fleet, but with the expected massive volley launches in modern warfare, there will be plenty of warheads to target each ship multiple times, and the smaller ships will simply cease to be under the onslaught.
Destroyers are always in demand. I wanna see new deepwater ASW and AA frigates too.
Posted by: Ted at September 9, 2005 02:50 PMWow, it seems like they just commissioned the Arleigh Burke. Technology moves a bit faster these days, I guess.
Posted by: nic at September 9, 2005 05:02 PMPVLS, by moving those clusters to the hull, will provide the ship with something reminiscent of the reactive armor fitted to the M1A2 Abrams main battle tank. The PVLS concept has already been successfully tested, and will make this ship significantly less vulnerable to sea-skimming missiles.
Sounds like a direct response to the USS Cole bombing. OOO-RAH!
A little correction to your research:
The SPRUANCE (DD-963) was commissioned in 75, hardly a WWII class DD.
The SPRUANCEs (I served on two and am a plank owner on one of them) replaced the venerable GEARING Class DDs, that were almost all built in 1944 and 45. They served well into the 70's. I did a midshipman cruise on the USS CONE (DD-881) in the summer of '73.
Posted by: Curt at October 1, 2005 01:32 PMThanks for the correction, Curt. If I would've thought a second, I'd would've realized that the Spruance class was named after the admiral, who fought in WWII.
Posted by: Ted at October 1, 2005 02:04 PM