DDG(X): Naysayers May Win the Debate Over U.S. Navy’s Next-Generation Destroyer – You may be familiar with the debate about aircraft carriers – that they are too expensive to buy and maintain. Perhaps the aircraft carrier is obsolete, and the Navy should focus on building more frigates and destroyers.
Yet another debate is brewing up involving the DDG(X) program, in which the Navy wants to build a new class of guided missile destroyers by the 2030s.
And, sadly for the Navy, this new warship class is getting its share of bad press and doubtful commentary.
What’s the Latest Update on DDG(X)?
The next-generation DDG (X stands for experimental) will replace the navy’s aging Ticonderoga-Class cruisers and older Arleigh Burke-Class destroyers.
The Navy plans to buy the DDG(X) in FY32, so there is plenty of time to work out the program’s kinks. The maritime branch is still in design, research, and development mode regarding the DDG(X), and it is asking Congress for $103 million for these efforts in FY25.
Sounds Good on Paper
The current DDG(X) design (this design is still in development and could change) envisions a displacement of 13,500 tons, which is 39 percent bigger than the Arleigh Burke-Class.
This greater size will give the DDG(X) more space for weapons systems and upgraded and renewed elements of the Aegis Combat System. The DDG(X) will have better electronics and cooling mechanisms. DDG(X) is envisioned to carry hypersonic missiles and lasers.
The Congressional Research Service also said the next-generation destroyer will have “an integrated power system (IPS); reduced vulnerability due to reduced infrared, acoustic, and underwater electromagnetic signatures; increased cruising range and time on station; and increased weapons capacity.”
Are the Advantages Worth the Price tag?
But critics say the DDG(X) will cost too much and mimic capabilities that the latest Arleigh Burke-class destroyers already have. All that extra money will simply allow the DDG(X) to be equipped with hypersonic missiles and lasers – features that could perhaps be added later to the Burke-class warships.
According to the Congressional Budget Office estimates, each DDG(X) may set the navy back $3.1 to $3.4 billion. It is unclear if lawmakers could stomach such an expense when the capabilities of the Flight III variants of Arleigh Burkes are similar.
How About Simply Buying a Cheaper Frigate?
Moreover, the Constellation-class frigates cost only $1 billion to produce, which is much cheaper than the DDG(X), so naval analysts are wondering if the DDG(X) is really necessary. The other question that has emerged is, what exactly will the mission be for the DDG(X)?
That could be problematic if it means sailing close to the Chinese shore in a battle over Taiwan. At its current design, the DDG(X) would be better as a support ship in a carrier strike group that is safely out of range of Chinese anti-ship missiles.
DDG(X): It Needs a More Unique Role
That raises another question. If DDG(X) is a support ship, what is the point of acquiring it? Arleigh Burkes already executed that mission. Yes, the next-generation destroyer should be able to carry directed energy and hypersonic systems.
Still, perhaps the older destroyers already in the fleet could do the same thing someday, especially if the money saved from DDG(X) can be plowed into the Burke or Constellation programs.
More Questions Without Answers
To heighten the DDG(X) criticism, the Congressional Research Service again asks more critical questions about the next-generation destroyer. “Has the navy taken adequate steps to mature DDG(X) technologies and mitigate technical, schedule, and cost risks in the program? Has the navy planned adequately for the transition from DDG-51 procurement to DDG(X) procurement and for resulting impacts on the shipbuilding industrial base?”
With all this criticism of the DDG(X) program, the Navy should reconsider the new ship. The program is too expensive and is partially redundant. Hypersonics and lasers would be nice, but they can be outfitted on other ships. The money saved from the DDG(X) can be better invested in other large service combatant programs. To be sure, there is still time to re-imagine the DDG(X). Problems can be mitigated, and a new design is possible.
But in its current configuration, the ship makes no sense, and legislators will certainly read the Congressional Research Service report and note the problems. That means the DDG(X) is far from fruition at its current level of configuration and development.
About the Author: Dr. Brent M. Eastwood
Brent M. Eastwood, PhD, is the author of Don’t Turn Your Back On the World: a Conservative Foreign Policy and Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare, plus two other books. Brent was the founder and CEO of a tech firm that predicted world events using artificial intelligence. He served as a legislative fellow for U.S. Senator Tim Scott and advised the senator on defense and foreign policy issues. He has taught at American University, George Washington University, and George Mason University. Brent is a former U.S. Army Infantry officer. He can be followed on X @BMEastwood.
pagar
August 27, 2024 at 9:25 am
(The next) US president deploying allied destroyers to taiwan battle will effectively be signing the elusive but most totally final and definitely irreversible death warrant for taipei.
THE message here is – Look b4 you leap.
Taipei Doesn’t require any death sentence, nor has it ever asked for one but some people prefer to believe they’re the unchallengeable god king on Earth.
siempre
August 29, 2024 at 9:46 am
The US Navy has failed in its last two ship projects because it still uses WW2 thinking to design ships. The destroyer was a 1910’s concept designed to use speed and agility to defeat Uboats and surface torpedo boats. Not exactly a 2024 need. A modern warship does not need great speed or agility but it does need armor and volume. A modern warship design should look more like a commercial freighter as the issue is fuel efficiency, carrying bulky missles and electric generators and sufficient armor to survive missle strikes carrying limited explosives.
Andy
August 29, 2024 at 11:05 am
The reason DDG X is weong is that its soending more for less ship. Zeus updates to Zumwalt could lead the foundation of a flight 2 that could function as a cruiser and command ship. Then design a cheap flight 4 Burke to add numbers and capacity.
James Drouin
August 29, 2024 at 1:30 pm
Good Lord the quality of commenters has gone to the dogs.
The first one’s premise is that defending Taiwan is its death sentence. The second one’s premise is that slow and heavy is optimal for naval warfare. And the third one’s premise is that a boondoggle can be updated to non-boondoggle status.
As for the article itself, the US Navy design bureau – however you want to define that – is in desperate straits. It has produced nothing but failures for the past twenty ye.ars It, in fact, couldn’t perform worse if every last man or woman in the entire process was fired and the night janitors took over.
A
August 29, 2024 at 2:53 pm
Don’t forget to blame Congress. Their direction has not helped. What exactly would you do? Mine is taking an existing design and building back in the lost margins. then take the boondoggle whose only real fault is its guns and make the world’s most cutting edge design fit in the fleet architecture.
Jerome, Not Chinese, Barry
August 29, 2024 at 5:42 pm
It appears that there is ample opportunity for the U.S. Navy to do a NASA and invite commercial firms to get into the warship market.
It’d be true to form if the Navy awarded the contract to a Chinese shipyard.
C
September 5, 2024 at 9:36 pm
Due respect to the author, but the purpose of the DDG(x) is pretty clear, to serve as a replacement to the Ticos, which will all be retired in the next year or two. It’s the same purpose in a long string of failed acquisition programs by the Navy over the past 30 years.
The problem with the “build more Burke Flight III’s” is that Burkes are already at their limits in terms of electrical power and volume. The new AN/SPY-6 was downsized as a result of those limitations on the Burkes. Also, while the Burkes are excellent air defense platforms (see Houthis – Red Sea), they lack the flagship and command facilities of the Tico that would be important in a higher intensity conflict.
The Constellation frigates aren’t a solution either. They have an even more downsized radar, and only 32 vertical launch cells. As we’re seeing in Ukraine, saturation attacks are a serious threat.. Even the Burkes 96 cells seems inadequate.. Plus, the new frigates are so underpowered they won’t even be able to make 25 knots.
Pingback: SSN(X): The U.S. Navy's Next Generation Submarine Is in Zombie Land - NationalSecurityJournal