DDG(X) - Arleigh Burke Replacement

Moose said:
And with the current cancellation spree, it's not guaranteed this program lives long enough to produce an actual ship.
Click to expand...

What would be the alternative though? I'd argue DDG(X) is too important to fail. Arguably just as important as something like the Columbias or B-21s.

The Burkes, while new ones roll off the line, aren't going to become younger, especially the earlier ships. The Constellations are up to a rough start. The LCS are smol lemons. Zumwalts are essentially three testbeds and lastly the venerable Ticonderogas are going extinct as we speak.

So DDG(X) has to succeed and quite frankly it's already kinda late. But that's mostly because DDG-1000 being such a spectacular failure (as a program). And while countries like Russia would like if it was that way, but a navy cannot solely rely on submarines, innit?

One would have thought that the threat of the PLAN would have led to a supercharged development and funding for DDG(X) (as well as SSN(X) tbh). But there's little evidence for that so far, or am I missing something?
 
EmoBirb said:
What would be the alternative though? I'd argue DDG(X) is too important to fail. Arguably just as important as something like the Columbias or B-21s.

The Burkes, while new ones roll off the line, aren't going to become younger, especially the earlier ships. The Constellations are up to a rough start. The LCS are smol lemons. Zumwalts are essentially three testbeds and lastly the venerable Ticonderogas are going extinct as we speak.

So DDG(X) has to succeed and quite frankly it's already kinda late. But that's mostly because DDG-1000 being such a spectacular failure (as a program). And while countries like Russia would like if it was that way, but a navy cannot solely rely on submarines, innit?

One would have thought that the threat of the PLAN would have led to a supercharged development and funding for DDG(X) (as well as SSN(X) tbh). But there's little evidence for that so far, or am I missing something?
Click to expand...
Zumwalts being a flop, shouldn’t have any delaying effect on DDG(X).
If anything it should have sped it up, after all if we had the full purchase of 30, there’d likely be no talk about a new large surface combatant program until 2030, or maybe just starting now.

If I’m not mistaken we were supposed to have a preliminary design of some sort by now.

I don’t agree with the person saying they think it’ll get cancelled.
It might see more delays, but i 100% believe we’ll have the first hull commissioned by the end of 2040.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Zumwalts being a flop, shouldn’t have any delaying effect on DDG(X).
If anything it should have sped it up, after all if we had the full purchase of 30, there’d likely be no talk about a new large surface combatant program until 2030, or maybe just starting now.
Click to expand...

That's what I meant, it's only so late because it wasn't needed years ago, only when DDG-1000 got canceled without a proper replacement was it that the whole timeline was pushed further and further back. Leading to a gap Flight III Burkes try to fill until DDG(X) is ready.

It might see more delays, but i 100% believe we’ll have the first hull commissioned by the end of 2040.
Click to expand...

That would be waaaaay to late though I'd argue. That first ship should be in service in the late 2030s at the very latest. If not, then seriously just can the entire US Navy. Nobody needs a ship that took 20 years to develop.
 
Last edited:
EmoBirb said:
What would be the alternative though? I'd argue DDG(X) is too important to fail. Arguably just as important as something like the Columbias or B-21s.

The Burkes, while new ones roll off the line, aren't going to become younger, especially the earlier ships. The Constellations are up to a rough start. The LCS are smol lemons. Zumwalts are essentially three testbeds and lastly the venerable Ticonderogas are going extinct as we speak.

So DDG(X) has to succeed and quite frankly it's already kinda late. But that's mostly because DDG-1000 being such a spectacular failure (as a program). And while countries like Russia would like if it was that way, but a navy cannot solely rely on submarines, innit?

One would have thought that the threat of the PLAN would have led to a supercharged development and funding for DDG(X) (as well as SSN(X) tbh). But there's little evidence for that so far, or am I missing something?
Click to expand...


I'm still scratching my head as to why they don't just use the Zumwalt hull. So the world changed and we don't need the two guns up front as much. BFD. It's still got a lot of space for missile cells, a huge flight deck, and lot of power for radars and DEWs. Rip out the two guns, throw the big VLS for hypersonics in aft position and Mk41 VLS in the forward. Put a couple RAM launchers and/or guns up on top of the hangar (and not those POSs they have now) and call it good. That's Flight I.
 
Sferrin said:
I'm still scratching my head as to why they don't just use the Zumwalt hull. So the world changed and we don't need the two guns up front as much. BFD. It's still got a lot of space for missile cells, a huge flight deck, and lot of power for radars and DEWs. Rip out the two guns, throw the big VLS for hypersonics in aft position and Mk41 VLS in the forward. Put a couple RAM launchers and/or guns up on top of the hangar (and not those POSs they have now) and call it good. That's Flight I.
Click to expand...

I have to admit, it's something I repeatedly thought about myself whenever I thought about the Zumwalts and DDG(X). As in, just the let the first three be their own thing, Flight I (or Flight 0) and produce a modified version with more VLS and the CPS modules for a handful of ships to give them more offensive punch (meaning some ships will be more so geared towards air warfare in battle groups, while others will be surface-to-surface killers with CPS). By now they should know what systems are troublesome and integrate more robust alternatives or improved versions into the hull. Find ways to reduce cost.

I cannot believe that this would be more expensive than the entire DDG(X) program which is moving at a snails pace.

In my eyes it's truly a shame what the USN has become or is becoming at the current trajectory. It's a disservice for one of the most prestigious and important branches in US military history.
 
EmoBirb said:
That's what I meant, it's only so late because it wasn't needed years ago, only when DDG-1000 got canceled without a proper replacement was it that the whole timeline was pushed further and further back. Leading to a gap Flight III Burkes try to fill until DDG(X) is ready.



That would be waaaaay too late though I'd argue. That first ship should be in service in the late 2030s at the very latest. If not, then seriously just can the entire US Navy. Nobody needs a ship that took 20 years to develop.
Click to expand...
If they did the whole 30 hull purchase 2040 isn’t too late.

Zumwalt was 5 years from keel laying to commissioning.
Micheal monsoor was 6 years.
LBJ was 2 years.

Let’s assume the big original order went through, even at 3 ships started per batch, 2-3 years per batch we likely would have finished building the last one around 2019-2021, so we’d have at least half a dozen large surface combatants that are only a decade or less old. The navy and congress wouldn’t likely see a need for another large surface combatant program until 2030-2040, because for some reason we always only start these programs at the last minute.

Imho DDG(X) should have started as a program around 2015 or earlier, but we didn’t start until what? 2020.

Zumwalts are too toxic to base a new program on them.
Same reason I knew the LCS variants would never win the FFG(X) contract. Same as I know we’ll never get an MMSC as a corvette or light frigate even though that’s probably a good idea for our fleet if we ever want to actually grow the fleet size.
 
Last edited:
Firefinder said:
The FREMMs have it, including the Connie,
Click to expand...
FREMMs use CODLAG, not IEP. The diesel cruising plant is electrically cross-connected to the shafts via electric motors, but the gas turbine boost plant is mechanically cross connected via a gearbox. Ships with IEP, like the Zumwalt and QE have the output of their entire machinery plants hooked up to generators driving the shafts via more powerful electric motors, with no mechanical cross connection.
 
Sferrin said:
I'm still scratching my head as to why they don't just use the Zumwalt hull. So the world changed and we don't need the two guns up front as much. BFD. It's still got a lot of space for missile cells, a huge flight deck, and lot of power for radars and DEWs. Rip out the two guns, throw the big VLS for hypersonics in aft position and Mk41 VLS in the forward. Put a couple RAM launchers and/or guns up on top of the hangar (and not those POSs they have now) and call it good. That's Flight I.
Click to expand...
Not to mention the opportunity to change from the Advanced Induction Motors of Zumwalt to Permanent Magnet Motors as used by the Columbia class (and as originally intended for the Zumwalt)
 
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
Not to mention the opportunity to change from the Advanced Induction Motors of Zumwalt to Permanent Magnet Motors as used by the Columbia class (and as originally intended for the Zumwalt)
Click to expand...
Yeah, I wouldn't be too anxious to do that, not until the US fires up it's own supply of rare earth metals.
 
MihoshiK said:
Yeah, I wouldn't be too anxious to do that, not until the US fires up it's own supply of rare earth metals.
Click to expand...
Oh we do have our own supply, some of them are bigger then China's who ships there's to the US for refinements.

We don't really mine it here cause the stuff is an Superfund nightmare in the waiting so it cheaper to let China, who don't care, mine it.

As is we mine just enough to do the military stuff.

Also there's a new Magnet factory in Michigan which uses Iron Nitrate that's bout twice as powerful per weight as Neodymium.
 
Sferrin said:
I'm still scratching my head as to why they don't just use the Zumwalt hull. So the world changed and we don't need the two guns up front as much. BFD. It's still got a lot of space for missile cells, a huge flight deck, and lot of power for radars and DEWs. Rip out the two guns, throw the big VLS for hypersonics in aft position and Mk41 VLS in the forward. Put a couple RAM launchers and/or guns up on top of the hangar (and not those POSs they have now) and call it good. That's Flight I.
Click to expand...
Would note the Zumwalt build started Feb. '09 and BIW completed the Hull, Mechanical & Electrical build May '16, 7 years later, and it was not till Apr. '20 before the combat systems were installed and activitated and was delivered to Navy, 11 years from start of build, to be noted the Navy refused to carry out underwater explosion (UDEX) shock trials on the hull.
The Japanese ASEV destroyer is the same size as the Zumwalt, but with a standard hull, not tumblehome and as far as know not IEP was ordered Sep. 24 and is due for delivery in 2027.
So why would you ever think of building more Zumwalt hulls.
 
Sferrin said:
I'm still scratching my head as to why they don't just use the Zumwalt hull.
Click to expand...

Because as large as the Zumwalt is, it’s a 20 year old platform.

Zumwalt’s 78MW of electrical power is not enough for 18-foot radars and DEWs. When the DD-21/DD(X) programs were conceptualized, they made future allowances for DEWs. However, because those systems were very immature at the time, and the alloted SLA margin no longer matches reality (150kW vs 350kW+).
And DDG(X)'s 18-foot+ SPY-6, FXR, SEWIP Block III, and AESA communications will be even more power hungry than Zumwalt’s electronics suite. DDG(X) will need stored energy systems to meet the increased power draw, something that's currently being under-reported. This is also the only truly "new" or "experimental" technologyy DDG(X) will introduce.

Further, the Zumwalt hull is very volume-limited. Recall that tumblehome hulls are biggest at the waterline. So in order to maximize volume, they need to enlarge the overall dimensions. That’s why Zumwalt is so large.

So while they might be able to get DDG(X) levels of performance off a Zumwalt hull, the SLA margin will be very, very small.

Cordy said:
The Japanese ASEV destroyer is the same size as the Zumwalt, but with a standard hull, not tumblehome and as far as know not IEP was ordered Sep. 24 and is due for delivery in 2027.
Click to expand...
But IEP is the minimal viable solution, and ASEV can’t take VPTs. I remain utterly unimpressed with ASEV, and don’t understand why people think it’s a good DDG(X) solution. It lacks all the key developments DDG(X) will introduce.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cordy said:
Would note the Zumwalt build started Feb. '09 and BIW completed the Hull, Mechanical & Electrical build May '16, 7 years later, and it was not till Apr. '20 before the combat systems were installed and activitated and was delivered to Navy, 11 years from start of build, to be noted the Navy refused to carry out underwater explosion (UDEX) shock trials on the hull.
The Japanese ASEV destroyer is the same size as the Zumwalt, but with a standard hull, not tumblehome and as far as know not IEP was ordered Sep. 24 and is due for delivery in 2027.
So why would you ever think of building more Zumwalt hulls.
Click to expand...
And later hulls were built quicker.
Much of the delays for the first was likely due to chaos within the navy and congress around the future of the program.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
And later hulls were built quicker.
Much of the delays for the first was likely due to chaos within the navy and congress around the future of the program.
Click to expand...
The first steel was cut for USS Michael Monsoor (DDG 1001) April 2012 and Navy accepted delivery of the Hull, Mechanical & Electrical from BIW 6 years later in April 2018, not that much quicker than Zumwalt. Just reading the GAO Jun.' 25 Annual Weapon Systems Assessment which reporting the Navy has finally accepted final delivery of DDG1001. As said why would you ever think of building more IEP Zumwalt hulls as basis of the DDG(X) if they take that long to build, Japanese targeting 3 years to build and deliver the ASEV destroyer.

 
Cordy said:
The first steel was cut for USS Michael Monsoor (DDG 1001) April 2012 and Navy accepted delivery of the Hull, Mechanical & Electrical from BIW 6 years later in April 2018, not that much quicker than Zumwalt. Just reading the GAO Jun.' 25 Annual Weapon Systems Assessment which reporting the Navy has finally accepted final delivery of DDG1001. As said why would you ever think of building more IEP Zumwalt hulls as basis of the DDG(X) if they take that long to build, Japanese targeting 3 years to build and deliver the ASEV destroyer.

Click to expand...
Yes still in the middle of the zumwalt controversy.

How long was it for the LBJ? It took like 28 months to build from keel laying to commissioning.
 
DWG said:
Is DDG-1002 actually commissioned yet? I thought that wasn't due until 2027. She was christened in April 2019, but wasn't complete at that point.
Click to expand...
You are correct she was only christened in 2019.
I’d be willing to bet the 2027 date was a delayed date so they would be commissioning her just to immediately send her in to get a refit for the CPS VLS.

But every picture I could find from around 2019 she was looking pretty much complete.
Wiki says she’s expected to enter service in 2024 though.

Point being the reason for the long build times of zumwalts is low priority since they didn’t really bring much to the table, and were highly controversial, not because they actually take a long time to build.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
How long was it for the LBJ? It took like 28 months to build from keel laying to commissioning.
Click to expand...

The start of the build DDG 1002 was April 2012 the same time the then Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus named her Lyndon B. Johnson. The Navy web site says it accepted completion of H, M & E from BIW in Nov. '21 - 9+years in build before" LBJ departed for BIW Jan. '22 for Ingalls, Pascagoula, for combat systems installation and activation, GAO reporting the Navy expecting ship delivery in late 2026, 14 plus years

So we have a track record of IEP Zumwalt hull build times of DDG 1000 - 7 years, DDG1001 - 6 years and DDG 1002 - 9 years, and will repeat myself as to why would you ever think of using the IEP Zumwalt hull as basis of the DDG(X) as they they take so long to build, Japanese targeting 3 years to build and deliver the ASEV destroyer.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Who wants to take bets on the cost journey of the ship?
Click to expand...

I’m guessing $3.5-5B for a single hull using FY25 dollars. *Cost assuming a 1 hull order

Cordy said:
why would you ever think of using the IEP Zumwalt hull as basis of the DDG(X)
Click to expand...
Ah, surely Zumwalt’s prolonged construction can’t be traced to anything else besides the IEP plant.
And once again, may I remind you that the Navy doesn’t think IEP will meet its power demands?
 
that_person said:
I’m guessing $3.5-5B for a single hull using FY25 dollars. *Cost assuming a 1 hull order


Ah, surely Zumwalt’s prolonged construction can’t be traced to anything else besides the IEP plant.
And once again, may I remind you that the Navy doesn’t think IEP will meet its power demands?
Click to expand...
Burkes are currently like $3b per hull, so I really doubt it comes out as under $5b. Even $5b seems like an obviously way too low estimate.
 
GAO quotes Zumwalt procurement as $17.25 billion for the 3 ships and $14.6 billion in
development, total progam cost $31.8 billion, $10.6 billion per ship - FY 25 dollars.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Burkes are currently like $3b per hull, so I really doubt it comes out as under $5b. Even $5b seems like an obviously way too low estimate.
Click to expand...

A CBO report from January 2025 estimated that the average cost of a Flt III Burke (assuming 61 total ships purchased [EDIT: sorry, this is for 23 ships ordered]) would be $2.7B per hull in 2024 dollars
 
Last edited:
that_person said:
Is that for a multi-ship buy, or a single hull/year?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I meant 23 ships ordered. The Navy is ordering these ships in multi-ship purchases, and the production rate is about 2 per year (or just over?). But the Navy's plan is to overlap DDG-51 purchases with DDG(X) purchases from 2032 to 2037. 13 DDG-51s will be ordered by 2028, leaving 10 ships to order between 2029 and 2037, according to the plan. In reality, who knows how this schedule will actually go. My guess is that the DDG(X) will be delayed and more DDG-51 ships will be ordered until DDG(X) is ready to take those production slots. Hopefully the yards are kept working at a consistent pace with no dropoff in destroyer production between DDG-51 and DDG(X).
 
joshjosh said:
My guess is that the DDG(X) will be delayed and more DDG-51 ships will be ordered until DDG(X) is ready to take those production slots. Hopefully the yards are kept working at a consistent pace with no dropoff in destroyer production between DDG-51 and DDG(X).
Click to expand...

Burkes will still come off the line when Type 056s* enter service. Truly the F-15 of the Navy.

*(I'm just gonna assume that's how they'll name a hypothetical Type 055 successor)
 
EmoBirb said:
Burkes will still come off the line when Type 056s* enter service. Truly the F-15 of the Navy.

*(I'm just gonna assume that's how they'll name a hypothetical Type 055 successor)
Click to expand...
Slightly OT but because you mentioned it; Type 056 is a littoral corvette, they have 50 or so in the PLAN. The next Chinese destroyer might simply be a letter designation, ie, 055B. for example. There are some noises about a next gen destroyer but it seems to be purely academic for now.
 
Last edited:
One thing to note when talking about DDG(X) cost estimates is that equipment density is an underappreciated cost driver, and something that the CBO estimates, which use basic cost per ton figures from previous surface combatants, that are often trotted out don't take into account.

Blog post, I know, but in this case we can simply take the data. And as the attached chart shows, both the lead ships of the Perry and Ticonderoga classes were modestly but noticeably cheaper on a cost per ton basis than the lead ship of the Burke-class, something that correlates with their equipment density. Why? Labor costs: equipment density increases the man-hours required, and labor is 30% the cost of a ship.

And we know the Flight III Burkes are even more densely packed than the Flight Is.

Given one of the goals of DDG(X) is almost certainly to reduce equipment density, the base cost per ton is going to go down in comparison. Of course, this raises the elephant in the room of a Zumwalt situation where the equipment costs themselves drive things up, but without the gargantuan R&D involved in the Zumwalt program hopefully that can be avoided.
 

Attachments

  • Cost Weight vs. Outfit Density.png
    Cost Weight vs. Outfit Density.png
    112.3 KB · Views: 37
  • Ships Possessing Greater Density Increase Production Cost.png
    Ships Possessing Greater Density Increase Production Cost.png
    66 KB · Views: 37
vanishingelephant said:
Slightly OT but because you mentioned it; Type 056 is a littoral corvette, they have 50 or so in the PLAN. The next Chinese destroyer might simply be a letter designation, ie, 055B. for example. There are some noises about a next gen destroyer but it seems to be purely academic for now.
Click to expand...
They seem content to keep churning out 055s. They're on their second batch of 8 as I recall.
 
aonestudio said:
Click to expand...
CRS July 16 report "Navy DDG(X) Next-Generation Destroyer Program: Background and Issues for Congress" mentions Navy only requesting $133.5 million in R & D suggesting it’s a fairly low priority for the Navy, Adm Ron Boxall in 2018 said that it would be ordered in 2023, now 2034?

The 2018 Future Surface Combatant Force Analysis of Alternatives (FSCF AoA) identified the requirement for a future large surface combatants (LSCs) to be capable of hosting directed energy (DE) weapons, larger missiles for increased range and speed, increased magazine depth, growth inorganic sensors, and an efficient integrated power system to manage the dynamic loads, in Aug. '24 they changed the DDG(X) OR to increase speed and electrical power.
Though now at 14,500 tons it will be 50% larger than a Burke it will have the same number of 96 Mk 41 VLS cells or 76 cells if 32 are changed for 12 of the new larger VLS cells as being fitted to Zumwalt for the larger hypersonic CPS land attack missiles, unless the mid hull plug is built in to bring the displacement to approx. size of the Japanese ASEV hybrid electro-mechanical propulsion destroyer with its 128 VLS cells and costed at $2.62 billion, FY26 Burke FLT III $2.75 billion and the standard without plug DDG(X) estimated by CBO at $4.4 billion.

The Navy plans to model the IPS at a land-based test site, but the results may not be available to fully inform the ship’s design prior to its detailed design, looking like it may be another classic case of concurrency, you would have thought with many years in build delays and increase in $ billions to Ford cost when the unproven Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS), Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG), and Advanced Weapons Elevators (AWE) were included in Ford build, problems with the AAG and AWEs are continuing as said to be primary reason for the current two year delay in build for the follow-on Kennedy, you would have thought Navy would have learned their lesson, the definition of insanity, attributed by some to Einstein, is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Navy recently placed a $10 million contract with GE Vernova for a new tech prototype megawatt-scale hybrid modular converter for electric power ship propulsion.

The most recent Navy laser, the Lockheed HELIOS 60 to 150 kW was only fitted to one Burke, the USS Preble, for trials and the Navy never took up the contract option to buy more, so why did the FSCF AoA say the DDG(X) should be capable of hosting directed energy weapons (DEW) as it is puzzling to me as Navy has found it impossible to produce an operational DEW to date they are satisfied with, if they ever do it will be the time to consider building an IPS LCS.
Adm. Daryl Caudle (nominated to be the next CNO) in Jan. '25 said the service should be “embarrassed” by the fact it hasn’t managed yet to scale directed energy weapons onboard its ships despite having experimented with the technology since the Reagan administration 1980s era, he is not the only Admiral to express doubts on DEW, both Vice Adm. Brendan McLane, the top surface warfare officer, and Rear Adm. Fred Pyle have expressed similar sentiments.
 
Cordy said:
Adm Ron Boxall in 2018 said that it would be ordered in 2023, now 2034?
Click to expand...
Yes, because the LSC program wasn’t a serious priority for either the Navy or Congress. Recall that during the 2010s Congress absolutely hated the idea of a new hull, and spent the first half of the decade dicking around with the LPD-17 hull. The HII BMD Cruiser was largely done to show why such a design would be inadequate.

Cordy said:
primary reason for the current two year delay in build for the follow-on Kennedy, you would have thought Navy would have learned their lesson
Click to expand...
You will also note all these systems have been certified and done two combat deployments without issue. Kennedy’s delays are largely the Navy’s fault as they’ve been very heavy handed in the build schedule, to the detriment of NNS.
The Navy keeps stealing JFK’s AAG parts for Ford, so the original plan was to deliver CVN-79 without the AAG and AWE installed so the crew could begin training on the ship. Both systems would be installed during final outfitting, as done with Ford.
Problem is they found language in the FY19 NDAA saying the Navy can’t accept delivery of an incomplete carrier, so they’ve had to push delivery back a year.
Again, this has nothing to do with technological immaturity.
 
Good to see they're finally acknowledging 13,500t was too low, but I'd much rather they not obsess over displacement in the first place. Unless you're working from an established hull and you're worried about overloading it, just no reason to have an arbitrary limit you're trying to design around.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom