Building a new Navy

Washington Times ^ | June 13, 2005 | Charles S. Hamilton

[AFPhys]

"... the next-generation destroyer, DD(X), with its two fully automated 155mm guns capable of firing 10 Global Positioning System-guided rounds per minute up to 83 nautical miles from an expandable 920-round magazine..."

Passionate advocates of returning our Nation's two battleships to service maintain that these two ships could be brought back into service quickly, safely and economically to meet Marine Corps requirements for long-range, precise firepower ashore...we should not confuse our fondness for those ships with an assumption of their appropriateness for the task at hand.

...If reactivated, the battleships would not be able to fire munitions "as far as 115 miles in a life-saving time of only three minutes."...The current range of an unguided 16-inch round is only 20 nautical miles...half the distance the Navy has fired the latest generations of smart rounds for our new naval guns. The notion that super long-range 16-inch gun rounds are within our grasp is illusory.

...today's battlefields, particularly the densely populated urban jungles in which our Marines and Soldiers currently fight, it would be folly to assume that a battlefield commander would employ a high-yield "dumb" weapon at long ranges without the utmost confidence that it would not inflict massive collateral damage.

...To provide sustained fire for major combat operations, DD(X) can employ imaginative new feature called an unlimited magazine...the ship can simultaneously conduct fire missions while being resupplied...much like a clip is used to reload a semi-automatic handgun or rifle.

...DD(X) will use a devastating new tactic called "multiple simultaneously round impact"...Each round steers to precise aim points, landing in a particular pattern at the same time in a no-notice, lethal salvo that catches targets unaware and unprepared from the very first shot...DD(X) will deliver...four times the range and...20 times the accuracy of a battleship.

[AFPhys]

I'd not heard of this DD(X) destroyer program. I hope someone pings the military lists to the article.

[tgusa]

http://peoships.crane.navy.mil/ddx/

[demlosers]

I'd not heard of this DD(X) destroyer program.

You haven't?

[PAR35]

It is my recollection that the DDX is going to cost about 3 billion a piece. I do remember that they cost more than an attack submarine. The sheer cost means that the navy is not going to be able to afford enough of them to get the job done.

By the way, although designated destroyers, they are the size of a cruiser, and a line of cruisers is actually planned for the same basic hull.

[AFPhys]

Pretty cool. Thanks for the picture.

[spetznaz]

It is a good... no, great ... system (even though there is a group that would prefer the old Battleships to be brought back, even though comparing a DDX to one of the BBs is like comparing the F22 Raptor to the F8 Crusader, or an M1A2 MBT to a Sherman tank ...an utter mismatch).

[Captain Rhino]

$3 billion seems to be the starting price tag for just about any major combatant ship (excluding aircraft carriers) these days. It has become a question not of how much Navy you need but, rather, how much Navy can you afford?

[PAR35]

I'm not sure that the artwork is accurate. The Cruiser is slated to have a helocopter, but I don't think that the DD comes with one.

[FreeAtlanta]

Here you go;

[Jeff Head]

Here's the Naval Technology page for the DDX Multi Mission Destroyer. Instead of 10-12, we need to build 20-24 of these babies IMHO.

DDX Multi Mission Detroyer

We desparately need to build our Navy backup to a 500-600 combat ship fleet as Reagan did...to counter:

The Rising Sea Dragon in Asia

[TomasUSMC]

The navy is still stuck in the past. 80 mile range, who is that supposed to impress? Jets cover 80 miles in a moment and can unleash missiles that travel much farther. Ships are too slow, 1 round every ten seconds, wupee. Thats nothing new. And a 155mm shell compared to a 16" shell is again, nothing. The problem with Battleships is the crew is so large.

For 3 billion a piece, we ought to be able to build submersible vtol supersonic aircraft carriers. Oh, throw in stealth in there too.

[Explodo]

"And a 155mm shell compared to a 16" shell is again, nothing."

Depends on the makeup of said round...one of the 155 rounds containing a tungston or DU sabot would have a much greater impact than a 16 inch shell...And, are 16" shell directable? No sir.

[LasVegasMac]

For 3 billion a piece, we ought to be able to build submersible vtol supersonic aircraft carriers.

LOL.

You might get a decent snorkle for that price.

LVM

[A.A. Cunningham]

destroyer

[EQAndyBuzz]

"For 3 billion a piece, we ought to be able to build submersible vtol supersonic aircraft carriers. Oh, throw in stealth in there too."

Submersible vtol supersonic aircraft carriers?

[PAR35]

Not sure what that is (a luxury yacht?) but it certainly isn't a DD(X).

[llevrok]

Build more subs with missile tubes for fleet protection and long distance targets (80+ miles).

I do not see anything with deck guns having much use in a techno sea envrionment nor in urban warefare.

[Modernman]

Jets cover 80 miles in a moment and can unleash missiles that travel much farther.

Jets require a base or an aircraft carrier. This ship does not.

For 3 billion a piece, we ought to be able to build submersible vtol supersonic aircraft carriers. Oh, throw in stealth in there too.

I doubt it. 3 billion isn't all that much when it comes to super-advanced weapons systems.

[PAR35]

Instead of 10-12, we need to build 20-24 of these babies IMHO.

10-12? At these prices we're talking half that number:

"Recent changes in the Navy's shipbuilding budget propose cutting the number of destroyers from seven to five ships, which means the Navy may reconsider its ship production plans."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1349440/posts

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

Use tactical nukes and flush away political correctness and you will get the job done a lot better--besides, they have already been built and paid for long ago.