DDG(X) - Arleigh Burke Replacement

Kat Tsun said:
It was just the A turret that was removed. The B turret and AGS handling equipment remains. That's probably a weight thing.
Click to expand...
Nope, just the B turret's non-rotating barrel shroud is left.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/dd-x-ddg-1000-zumwalt-class-destroyers.7670/page-29https://apnews.com/article/navy-hyp...china-russia-ec3272a36042796518aec665a4e65df3

Kat Tsun said:
They all have to go to Taiwan lol.
Click to expand...
Which means you make it so that nothing Chinese can survive within 100nmi of the Taiwanese shore.



Kat Tsun said:
There was actually a good report produced by CSIS on this very topic published today! Convoy escort is a possibility in a limited war/Berlin blockade scenario of Taiwan by the CCG and auxiliary forces of the PLAN. Provided the war doesn't explode, as it didn't in 1948, it would be the most likely outcome that surface units escort convoys into Taiwan for energy and basic foods while engaging at arm's length with tactical aircraft. Usually results in major surface unit losses (Burkes) for the U.S. 20-30 or so is typical.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/lights-out-wargaming-chinese-blockade-taiwan
The most high intensity engagement wargamed (one of the Free Play scenarios) sees the U.S. losing two carriers and the PLAN one. Most large war scenarios see the U.S. losing at least one carrier and a 3:1 ratio in favor of U.S. for surface combatants. Losses for subs range from 10-20x in U.S. favor though.
Click to expand...
Interesting, downloaded for later reading and thoughts.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Nope, just the B turret's non-rotating barrel shroud is left.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/dd-x-ddg-1000-zumwalt-class-destroyers.7670/page-29https://apnews.com/article/navy-hyp...china-russia-ec3272a36042796518aec665a4e65df3
Click to expand...

I stand corrected.

Scott Kenny said:
Which means you make it so that nothing Chinese can survive within 100nmi of the Taiwanese shore.
Click to expand...

The caveat is that the wargame assumes they aren't simply landing assault troops after establishing the blockade, which is probably more likely, since starving out Taiwan is not the most practical strategy given what the PLAN has been building. You don't really need helicopter assault carriers or expeditionary piers for a blockade.
 
TomS said:
Both turrets are gone on Zumwalt. Not fitting a second set of MACs is probably down to budget and the expected procurement of CPS missiles rather than volume.

Image from Google Maps.

View attachment 779884
Click to expand...
If they're not going to put MACs they should add some Mk41s. The USN being the USN though they'll probably just leave a vast area of empty deck.
 
Ozair said:
Crazy how cliquey this site is...
Click to expand...

Kinda, but it also makes lots of sense to have select topics being exclusively for people known to make top level contributions and have access to interesting knowledge. But the wider forum is available to anyone, which is a good deal but can muddle some posts where genuine contributions can get quickly buried.

It's like with a Ferrari, you can buy a Ferrari just like that, but to get the chance to buy the top line, high end, limited number cars you have to be known as a loyal customer who already has a decent track record of owning various high end models etc. etc.

And given that you can earn the status, you can get there by putting the effort in and doing more in depth research etc.
 
TomS said:
Probably not. Half the point is to have a place to discuss topics that researchers don't want to see in a magazine or online article.
Click to expand...
I was just guessing. But I think a known AW&ST writer would probably be better when it came to permission/attribution than some rando on Sandboxx or TMZ.
 
Do we have knowledge of any possible future cruiser designs for the USN?
A new CG(N)X?
 
CV12Hornet said:
The cruiser as a distinct ship type is dead and has arguably been dead for decades at this point.
Click to expand...
Call it what you like, we all know what he means. The replacement for the Ticonderoga. Something larger, and more capable than the Burkes. Something like what CG-X was supposed to be. In China they call them Type 055s.
 
Last edited:
Sferrin said:
Call it what you like, we all know what he means. The replacement for the Ticonderoga. Something larger, and more capable than the Burkes. Something like what CG-X was supposed to be. In China they call them Type 055s.
Click to expand...
That would be DDGX. A "Burke with Flag facilities".
 
Last edited:
Through the question is how much of that is possible without cutting into the capability.

Lots of that equipment is needed for that.


The Zumwalt class basically shows what you need for a modern surface ship.

A 16k ton monster the size of second and some third generation Super Dreadnoughts. And that's the extremely cutdown version missing half its radars, sonars, engine tech, and system programing. Hell the very first model of the current design even had more weapons, two 57mms and bout 40 more VLS.
 
Firefinder said:
Through the question is how much of that is possible without cutting into the capability.

Lots of that equipment is needed for that.


The Zumwalt class basically shows what you need for a modern surface ship.

A 16k ton monster the size of second and some third generation Super Dreadnoughts. And that's the extremely cutdown version missing half its radars, sonars, engine tech, and system programing. Hell the very first model of the current design even had more weapons, two 57mms and bout 40 more VLS.
Click to expand...

Easing off on the stealth a bit would have a huge impact -- if you don't need to maintain a constant air draft, you can do away with the ballast/comp tanks.

Dispensing with the two large AGS mounts would also make a significant difference (even the payload module tubes don't take the full volume of the AGS magazines). Also, rescaling the PVLS down to something more along 24-inch cells from the 27-inch Mk 57 will save some weight/volume (I think the appetite for 27-inch missiles is probably gone; really big strike missiles go in the payload modules).
 
TomS said:
Also, rescaling the PVLS down to something more along 24-inch cells from the 27-inch Mk 57 will save some weight/volume (I think the appetite for 27-inch missiles is probably gone; really big strike missiles go in the payload modules).
Click to expand...
Unfortunately I think you wrong on the Cell size.


In one of the Articles in this thread or the Surface Ships Need more weapons one, about the Naval Patriot it mentions that the USN is working on a 34 INCH size cell.

Which makes sense for the new standard since that allows so much more capabilities in Hypersonic/ABM defense work before adding in the strike or multipacking options.

Oh and just recall that you need to figure in the range figure, the last 3 major surface ships, Spruance Tico and Burkes, had issues with that as well as the Zumwalts somewhat. With Both the Burkes and the Zumwalts being design to increase that.

Turbines drink fuel like I do redbl even at max efficiency loading so expect the comp tank weight to go few gas or diesel engines.
 
Firefinder said:
Unfortunately I think you wrong on the Cell size.


In one of the Articles in this thread or the Surface Ships Need more weapons one, about the Naval Patriot it mentions that the USN is working on a 34 INCH size cell.
Click to expand...

That's for CPS, which would go in a Payload Module sort of launcher. They do not need that to be the standard size for every VLS cell in the ship.

A lot depends on what comes out of Compact Agile Interceptor. If that can quadpack into a 21-inch cell, there's a decent case for most of the DDG(X) cells a being that size, with possibly some larger for an SM3 successor and then the possibility of payload modules for really big missiles like CPS.

On of the interesting features of some future VLS concepts is the ability to change missile size without swapping the whole launcher module.
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
Easing off on the stealth a bit would have a huge impact -- if you don't need to maintain a constant air draft, you can do away with the ballast/comp tanks.

Dispensing with the two large AGS mounts would also make a significant difference (even the payload module tubes don't take the full volume of the AGS magazines). Also, rescaling the PVLS down to something more along 24-inch cells from the 27-inch Mk 57 will save some weight/volume (I think the appetite for 27-inch missiles is probably gone; really big strike missiles go in the payload modules).
Click to expand...
China has their large cells on the Type 055s. South Korea has the K-VLS II (significantly larger than the Mk57s.) Thing about big cells is you can still put multiples of the smaller missiles in them. You can't stuff a big missile in a small cell.

You could do something like this but it looks like it wastes a lot of space. (Of course, if you'd angled it the right way, it could have taken advantage of the tumblehome cross section.)

j7TiUYL.png
 

Attachments

  • modular-launch-system.pdf
    415.5 KB · Views: 40
Statements made by civilian leadership, as reported by USNI news below, indicate that the DDG(X) has been "replaced" by the new "Trump Class Battleship" program.
https://news.usni.org/2025/12/22/tr...l-be-largest-u-s-surface-combatant-since-wwiiAs yet there has been no official statement detailing the change in requirements and what the new plan is for combatants larger than the OPV-level FF(X) and smaller than Spaceball-1.
 
Moose said:
Statements made by civilian leadership, as reported by USNI news below, indicate that the DDG(X) has been "replaced" by the new "Trump Class Battleship" program.
https://news.usni.org/2025/12/22/tr...l-be-largest-u-s-surface-combatant-since-wwiiAs yet there has been no official statement detailing the change in requirements and what the new plan is for combatants larger than the OPV-level FF(X) and smaller than Spaceball-1.
Click to expand...

Let me guess. They think this allows them to reprogram the DDG(X) concept development money approved by Congress money for the BBG-1 (Big Beautiful Guns) instead.
 
TomS said:
Let me guess. They think this allows them to reprogram the DDG(X) concept development money approved by Congress money for the BBG-1 (Big Beautiful Guns) instead.
Click to expand...
My understanding is they believe they can reprogram DDG(X) and Connie money that they're "saving" on FF(X). At least that's what they're confidently bragging.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom