Italian Navy DDX

Moose

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
4 July 2010
Messages
2,217
Reaction score
2,098
The Italian Navy is planning a pair of 10,000 ton Destroyers, known for the time being as DDX.
www.defensenews.com

Italy plans new destroyers for 2028 delivery

Fresh from a burst of shipbuilding spurred by the retirement of old vessels, the Italian Navy is now back at the drawing board to design what it considers the cornerstone of its fleet — new destroyers.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Current plans envisage vessels that are 24 meters wide with a 9-meter draft and more than 300 crew, while offering a top speed of over 30 knots using the CODOGAL (COmbined Diesel Or Gas And eLectric) propulsion system, De Carolis said. The system allows the use of either gas or diesel turbines, plus electric propulsion for lower speeds.
Click to expand...
“The U.S. and Russia still operate cruisers, but most other navies today rely on destroyers for fighting power. They must cover anti-air, anti-ship and anti-submarine operations with a focus on integrated air and missile defense, including ballistic missile defense.”

The most “critical task” for destroyers, he added, is protecting carrier battle groups and playing the typical “shotgun role” for carriers. Examples he gave included the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War when the Italian vessel ITS Audace was part of the escort to the U.S. Navy aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt, and during Operation Enduring Freedom in 2002, when the ITS Durand de la Penne escorted the U.S. Navy carriers John C. Stennis and John F. Kennedy.
Click to expand...
These would be the largest surface combatants built in Western Europe since the 40s.
 
Moose said:
The Italian Navy is planning a pair of 10,000 ton Destroyers, known for the time being as DDX.
www.defensenews.com

Italy plans new destroyers for 2028 delivery

Fresh from a burst of shipbuilding spurred by the retirement of old vessels, the Italian Navy is now back at the drawing board to design what it considers the cornerstone of its fleet — new destroyers.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
These would be the largest surface combatants built in Western Europe since the 40s.
Click to expand...
The concept design seems shockingly under-armed for its size (64 VLS plus 8 Otomat). The similar-sized KDX-III have twice the VLS cells and SSMs, for example.
 
Armament-wise they appear to replicate the Horizons, with 20 years worth improvement in technology. The fixed-face radar and command facilities would definitely add on the tonnage, but it is curious they're looking at four thousand or so extra tons for DDX. Could be there's more under the skin, Italian crew accomodations are famously rather decent, or maybe they're taking the German approach of "build the biggest hull we can now and hope to tack on more missiles in a future budget."
 
Moose said:
Armament-wise they appear to replicate the Horizons, with 20 years worth improvement in technology.
Click to expand...

A bit better than the Horizons -- the article says 48 cells but the render shows 64. So that's a 33% increase, on a nearly 50% increase in displacement. I guess better radar could eat up some of that, but it seems disproportionate.

Moose said:
Italian crew accomodations are famously rather decent,
Click to expand...

Maybe they've upped their game; my understanding was that Italian ships historically tended to be fairly tight accomodation-wise. For one datapoint, I looked at a series of "Ship Characteristics" reports that Messrs Kehoe, Brower, and Meier wrote on various NATO frigates in Naval Engineers Journal around 1979-1981. The Maestrale class was their first subject, and they describe it as having overall habitability space below the NATO average, and "generally comparable to United States practice in the mid-1960s." The only ships that seem to have been worse in their survey were the Type 42s, which they called out as being exceptionally cramped. The French, Dutch, and Germans were well above the average.
 
I should have said "recent Italian crew accommodations." Their partnership with the French from the 90s on might have helped bring them up above par.
 
Moose said:
I should have said "recent Italian crew accommodations." Their partnership with the French from the 90s on might have helped bring them up above par.
Click to expand...

That makes sense. I do remember the Horizons being considered a massive improvement.
 
Moose said:
Could be there's more under the skin, Italian crew accomodations are famously rather decent, or maybe they're taking the German approach of "build the biggest hull we can now and hope to tack on more missiles in a future budget."
Click to expand...
I agree with that concept although I didn't think the Germans were proponents of it K130 is rather small, although as I understand it they are replacing the FAC there a step up. I think the engine power could be a governing factor, what is the planned power plant for the DDX, I presume they are to have two MT30s; which seems logical as there new frigate is using one, so a potential 100,000hp does seem to 'require' a large hull.
 
JohnR said:
Moose said:
Could be there's more under the skin, Italian crew accomodations are famously rather decent, or maybe they're taking the German approach of "build the biggest hull we can now and hope to tack on more missiles in a future budget."
Click to expand...
I agree with that concept although I didn't think the Germans were proponents of it K130 is rather small, although as I understand it they are replacing the FAC there a step up. I think the engine power could be a governing factor, what is the planned power plant for the DDX, I presume they are to have two MT30s; which seems logical as there new frigate is using one, so a potential 100,000hp does seem to 'require' a large hull.
Click to expand...

Which Italian frigates have MT30? The FREMM have LM2500 G4+.

The German ships Moose is referring to are presumably the F125s, which seem way too large for their equipment as well.
 
Moose said:
The Italian Navy is planning a pair of 10,000 ton Destroyers, known for the time being as DDX.
www.defensenews.com

Italy plans new destroyers for 2028 delivery

Fresh from a burst of shipbuilding spurred by the retirement of old vessels, the Italian Navy is now back at the drawing board to design what it considers the cornerstone of its fleet — new destroyers.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Current plans envisage vessels that are 24 meters wide with a 9-meter draft and more than 300 crew, while offering a top speed of over 30 knots using the CODOGAL (COmbined Diesel Or Gas And eLectric) propulsion system, De Carolis said. The system allows the use of either gas or diesel turbines, plus electric propulsion for lower speeds.
Click to expand...
“The U.S. and Russia still operate cruisers, but most other navies today rely on destroyers for fighting power. They must cover anti-air, anti-ship and anti-submarine operations with a focus on integrated air and missile defense, including ballistic missile defense.”

The most “critical task” for destroyers, he added, is protecting carrier battle groups and playing the typical “shotgun role” for carriers. Examples he gave included the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War when the Italian vessel ITS Audace was part of the escort to the U.S. Navy aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt, and during Operation Enduring Freedom in 2002, when the ITS Durand de la Penne escorted the U.S. Navy carriers John C. Stennis and John F. Kennedy.
Click to expand...
These would be the largest surface combatants built in Western Europe since the 40s.
Click to expand...

Except for carriers.
 
TomS said:
JohnR said:
Moose said:
Could be there's more under the skin, Italian crew accomodations are famously rather decent, or maybe they're taking the German approach of "build the biggest hull we can now and hope to tack on more missiles in a future budget."
Click to expand...
I agree with that concept although I didn't think the Germans were proponents of it K130 is rather small, although as I understand it they are replacing the FAC there a step up. I think the engine power could be a governing factor, what is the planned power plant for the DDX, I presume they are to have two MT30s; which seems logical as there new frigate is using one, so a potential 100,000hp does seem to 'require' a large hull.
Click to expand...

Which Italian frigates have MT30? The FREMM have LM2500 G4+.

The German ships Moose is referring to are presumably the F125s, which seem way too large for their equipment as well.
Click to expand...
I have to apologise I must have had some sort of a brain fart and managed to confuse the Italian PPA and the use of MT30 on the Trieste, Japanese 30DX and the S Korean Daegu Frigates.
 
JohnR said:
TomS said:
JohnR said:
Moose said:
Could be there's more under the skin, Italian crew accomodations are famously rather decent, or maybe they're taking the German approach of "build the biggest hull we can now and hope to tack on more missiles in a future budget."
Click to expand...
I agree with that concept although I didn't think the Germans were proponents of it K130 is rather small, although as I understand it they are replacing the FAC there a step up. I think the engine power could be a governing factor, what is the planned power plant for the DDX, I presume they are to have two MT30s; which seems logical as there new frigate is using one, so a potential 100,000hp does seem to 'require' a large hull.
Click to expand...

Which Italian frigates have MT30? The FREMM have LM2500 G4+.

The German ships Moose is referring to are presumably the F125s, which seem way too large for their equipment as well.
Click to expand...
I have to apologise I must have had some sort of a brain fart and managed to confuse the Italian PPA and the use of MT30 on the Trieste, Japanese 30DX and the S Korean Daegu Frigates.
Click to expand...

No worries. Easy enough to lose track. The MT30s on Trieste are an odd choice. Power for DDX could be either, I expect. LM2500G4+ and MT30 are within about 10% these days.
 
aonestudio said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1628330666365448192
View: https://twitter.com/CiroNappi6/status/1628330666365448192

New DDX of Navy will be equipped with 96 VLS (Sylver A50-A70) divided for Air Def (Aster 15-30-30B1-30B1NT) and for long range deep land attack. As first use the SCALP Naval and in future FC/ASW of MBDA. DDX will have 13500ton of total displacement.
Click to expand...

RID Rivista Italiana Difesa

DDX, un super-cacciatorpediniere per la MM
www.rid.it
Click to expand...

OK, 96 VLS makes a lot more sense. But displacement is up, again! These are going to be huge ships by Euro standards. Right in the ballpark for the USN DDG(X). Maybe we can repeat the FREMM ==> FFG(X) pipeline? ;)
 
I understand navies in asian theater all punching above 10,000 tons but is there really a need for EU nation to go that large?
 
donnage99 said:
I understand navies in asian theater all punching above 10,000 tons but is there really a need for EU nation to go that large?
Click to expand...
Radar and ECM continues to grow and demand more SWAP+C, aviation spaces are growing, and growth margin has to grow to support longer service lives. Going to be hard to build a high-end combatant that isn't at least 10,000 tonnes going forward.
 
I also suspect that this is reflective of the fact there is now a greater expectation of having to get into a high-end fight, now, versus the outlook back in 2017/2018 when the program started to come together. The navy has also become a lot more open about talking about its deep strike options (i.e. the adoption of land-attack cruise missiles), and thus this may also be reflecting the increase in the number of cells on the design.

I would also note, as a general comment on the design - a significant reason for the increased size is because it is a fully multirole design. AAW is its primary task, but it will also be expected to be able to provide a robust ASuW capability (with the anti-ship missiles, land attack cruise missiles, and 127/64LW) and ASW capability - fielding both a towed VDS and a hangar capable of operating two AW101. The flight deck was also required to be large enough and reinforced to handle a V-22. All of this has driven up the displacement - on top of the requirement for placing powerful radar and EW systems high up in the hull.

I would also note that the render shown in the above tweet is an older one, from the period of 2018-2020. The most recent render we have was shown off back in 2021, and in more detail in April 2022;

20-4 DDX Slide.png

That said, I have to confess I have no idea what's going on with that bow...

It's also interesting to note that there was a Parliamentary Hearing yesterday where the Marina Militare's current Chief of Staff, Adm Credendino, related that the navy desires a second pair of DDX to be procured. This was, in fact, the second highest priority for additional procurement above already established programs - the highest priority was for an additional 3 to 6 ASW FREMM.
 
Are you saying that the U.S Navy, should forego their DDG(X) and instead tag onto the Italian DDX. Or should the Italians forego their DDX and instead sign onto the U.S Navies DDG(X) Program. The U.S DDG(X) prpgram seems to be moving at a fast pace and will produce both a destroyer and a Cruiser replacement to succeed both the DDG-51 and CG-47 class. Latest specs for the DDG(X) has it with 4×32 Mk41 modules + large VLS for Hyphersonic weapons and a displacement of 13, 500 + Long Tons.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FactChecker90803 said:
Are you saying that the U.S Navy, should forego their DDG(X) and instead tag onto the Italian DDX. Or should the Italians forego their DDX and instead sign onto the U.S Navies DDG(X) Program. The U.S DDG(X) prpgram seems to be moving at a fast pace and will produce both a destroyer and a Cruiser replacement to succeed both the DDG-51 and CG-47 class. Latest specs for the DDG(X) has it with 4×32 Mk41 modules + large VLS for Hyphersonic weapons and a displacement of 13, 500 + Long Tons.
Click to expand...

No, I wasn't seriously suggesting that the USN join the Italian program. Hence the emoji after my comment. It was just a joke based on how the USN is loosely adapting the Italian FREMM as FFG-62.

But fast pace is definitely not a word I'd use for the USN DDG(X) effort right now. They're talking about deliveries after 2030. I don't know where you get those specs, but they're mostly just guesses at the moment, other than that displacement figure, which seems to come from a Navy estimate.
 
TomS said:
FactChecker90803 said:
Are you saying that the U.S Navy, should forego their DDG(X) and instead tag onto the Italian DDX. Or should the Italians forego their DDX and instead sign onto the U.S Navies DDG(X) Program. The U.S DDG(X) prpgram seems to be moving at a fast pace and will produce both a destroyer and a Cruiser replacement to succeed both the DDG-51 and CG-47 class. Latest specs for the DDG(X) has it with 4×32 Mk41 modules + large VLS for Hyphersonic weapons and a displacement of 13, 500 + Long Tons.







No, I wasn't seriously suggesting that the USN join the Italian program. Hence the emoji after my comment. It was just a joke based on how the USN is loosely adapting the Italian FREMM as FFG-62.







But fast pace is definitely not a word I'd use for the USN DDG(X) effort right now. They're talking about deliveries after 2030. I don't know where you get those specs, but they're mostly just guesses at the moment, other than that displacement figure, which seems to come from a Navy estimate.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
FactChecker90803 said:
I acquired the specs from PEO Ships, USNI news and Wikipedia.
Click to expand...

The Wiki page for DDG(X) has a lot of speculation based on a single slide that specifically says it's only conceptual.

I do see the displacement number floating up a few places probably based on a CBO report. The drawing we have shows one 64-cell VLS block and a corner of another block (size unclear) It talks about replacing a 32-cell block with a block of larger VLS cells, and talks about an additional hull plug that could contain CPS hypersonic missiles. But again, this is all simply conceptual level. An actual worked design will likely have different features.
 
No detailed design appeared.
Navy League a few months ago
"During this period, the Navy will also create a detailed design and construction plan for DDG(X), a future class of large surface combatants, Pyle continued, with construction of the new ship class beginning in the next 15 years."
 
The DDX and DDG(X) programs definitely don't line up in timelines.

As of right now, the plan is for the first DDX to enter service with the Marina Militare in 2029, and the second in 2031. Work on the first ship will probably commence in late 2024 or in 2025.

In contrast, the USN's DDG(X) program is not expected to procure the first ship until FY2028 or FY2030 - so steel may not be cut on the first ship until 2029 or 2031, and the first ship will likely enter service around 2035-36.
 
Phoenix_jz said:
The DDX and DDG(X) programs definitely don't line up in timelines.

As of right now, the plan is for the first DDX to enter service with the Marina Militare in 2029, and the second in 2031. Work on the first ship will probably commence in late 2024 or in 2025.

In contrast, the USN's DDG(X) program is not expected to procure the first ship until FY2028 or FY2030 - so steel may not be cut on the first ship until 2029 or 2031, and the first ship will likely enter service around 2035-36.
Click to expand...

Perfect. We can follow your lead. ;)

Just to be clear, this is not serious. The USN used the "proven platform" of FREMM for FFG(X) to sidestep some structural problems with US shipbuilding. There's no chance they will do the same on a more important "tentpole" procurement like DDG(X). It's going to be a US industrial design with all the agony that implies.

The question is whether we're going to let industry compete on both design and construction (worked well on DD-963, not at all on DD-21) or do all the preliminary and detailed design "in house" (in reality, by Gibbs & Cox under NAVSEA guidance) and only compete construction.
 
TomS said:
Phoenix_jz said:
The DDX and DDG(X) programs definitely don't line up in timelines.

As of right now, the plan is for the first DDX to enter service with the Marina Militare in 2029, and the second in 2031. Work on the first ship will probably commence in late 2024 or in 2025.

In contrast, the USN's DDG(X) program is not expected to procure the first ship until FY2028 or FY2030 - so steel may not be cut on the first ship until 2029 or 2031, and the first ship will likely enter service around 2035-36.
Click to expand...

Perfect. We can follow your lead. ;)

Just to be clear, this is not serious. The USN used the "proven platform" of FREMM for FFG(X) to sidestep some structural problems with US shipbuilding. There's no chance they will do the same on a more important "tentpole" procurement like DDG(X). It's going to be a US industrial design with all the agony that implies.

The question is whether we're going to let industry compete on both design and construction (worked well on DD-963, not at all on DD-21) or do all the preliminary and detailed design "in house" (in reality, by Gibbs & Cox under NAVSEA guidance) and only compete construction.
Click to expand...
Just hope Gibbs & Cox / NAVSEA have improved since they designed the LCS Freedom class, LCS 1 Freedom overweight, post delivery external tanks had to be welded on to the stern for additional buoyancy to meet the damage stability standard, the later ships had the stern extended to build in the necessary additional buoyancy.

So maybe not so farfetched to think the DDG(X) HM&E will be based on the Italian DDX, there is the the precedent of the Constellation based on the Italian FREMM.

www.defensedaily.com

Navy Remedies Weight Issue On LCS-1, TRS-3D Radar Power Supply - Defense Daily

By Geoff Fein Although the Navy had to install tanks on the aft of Lockheed Martin's first Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) to improve the vessel's stability, a
www.defensedaily.com www.defensedaily.com
 
Cordy said:
TomS said:
Phoenix_jz said:
The DDX and DDG(X) programs definitely don't line up in timelines.

As of right now, the plan is for the first DDX to enter service with the Marina Militare in 2029, and the second in 2031. Work on the first ship will probably commence in late 2024 or in 2025.

In contrast, the USN's DDG(X) program is not expected to procure the first ship until FY2028 or FY2030 - so steel may not be cut on the first ship until 2029 or 2031, and the first ship will likely enter service around 2035-36.
Click to expand...

Perfect. We can follow your lead. ;)

Just to be clear, this is not serious. The USN used the "proven platform" of FREMM for FFG(X) to sidestep some structural problems with US shipbuilding. There's no chance they will do the same on a more important "tentpole" procurement like DDG(X). It's going to be a US industrial design with all the agony that implies.

The question is whether we're going to let industry compete on both design and construction (worked well on DD-963, not at all on DD-21) or do all the preliminary and detailed design "in house" (in reality, by Gibbs & Cox under NAVSEA guidance) and only compete construction.
Click to expand...
Just hope Gibbs & Cox / NAVSEA have improved since they designed the LCS Freedom class, LCS 1 Freedom overweight, post delivery external tanks had to be welded on to the stern for additional buoyancy to meet the damage stability standard, the later ships had the stern extended to build in the necessary additional buoyancy.

So maybe not so farfetched to think the DDG(X) HM&E will be based on the Italian DDX, there is the the precedent of the Constellation based on the Italian FREMM.

www.defensedaily.com

Navy Remedies Weight Issue On LCS-1, TRS-3D Radar Power Supply - Defense Daily

By Geoff Fein Although the Navy had to install tanks on the aft of Lockheed Martin's first Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) to improve the vessel's stability, a
www.defensedaily.com www.defensedaily.com
Click to expand...

Obviously way OT for Italy, but the current model where you have a design firm involved while the requirements are still being settled is intended to prevent a lot of this very problem. LCS was a moving target -- the Lockheed design started life as an ocean-going speedboat and everyone involved struggled to make it durable enough for naval use.
 
So, the April issue of RID (4/2023) has a short article that is very interesting, in terms of news.

Apparently, the news we had about the intention to have the design reach 13,500 tonnes is, uh, not growing from 11,000t. That part already happened, the working design now displaces 15,500t. They want to cut that down by 2,000 tonnes, hence the figure of 13,500 tonnes RID had given earlier. The design has reached 180 meters in length (previously it was reported as 175 meters long).

They once again confirm that they're using the Sylver family of VLS cells - A50 for Aster 15/30/30B1NT, and also Sylver A70, with MdCN as a "gap filler", to be replaced by FC/ASW down the line. Apparently the MMI is now interested in the French supersonic solution - presumably they're interesting in combining that with their dual AESA RF & E/O or IIR seeker they're developing for Teseo EVO?

The article also describes that there will be a dedicated counter-UAV capability integrated into the CMS, but does not describe what that system is - they say that a laser system is also being evaluated as a solution (emphasis my own) - whether it is adopted will depend on whether the capability is worth the weight and power draw.

They also confirm once again that the Kronos Dual Band Radar system is the solution for the multi-function radar, but note that they are now evaluating the installation of the Kronos Power Shield (L-band) not as a rotating array, but rather as a four fixed face array.

The current timeline sees the contract for the DDX being signed in 2024, so construction would presumably start in 2025.
 
kqcke for you said:
Which doesnt even matter. Its good for that what its supposed to be and could be little lighter if some requirment werent there but thats how it is now.
Click to expand...
anything can be good for its intended requirement but still a terrible design because its requirements can be fundamentally flawed.

Sure, 10,000 tonnes overglorified coastguard ship with the price tag of a naval cruiser will fullfill the its coastguard requirements and its real requirement which is avert the ire of the more committed NATO members but that doesn't mean imperically it is a good ship in cost vs capability analysis.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom