Next gen destroyer

Next gen destroyer DEFAULT

US Navy eyes new design for next-generation destroyer

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy is looking to build a new generation of destroyers from a clean-sheet design, following the model of one of its most successful ship classes, the Arleigh Burke-class DDG, the service’s top officer said Tuesday.

The idea, colloquially referred to in-house as DDG Next, is to build a new hull smaller than the nearly 16,ton Zumwalt-class destroyer but still big enough to accommodate a larger missile magazine, Adm. Michael Gilday told a virtual audience at Defense One’s State of the Navy event.

“I don’t want to build a monstrosity. But I need deeper magazines on ships than I have right now,” the chief of naval operations said. “I’m limited with respect to DDG Flight IIIs in terms of what additional stuff we could put on those ships. … So the idea is to come up with the next destroyer, and that would be a new hull. The idea would be to put existing technologies on that hull and update and modernize those capabilities over time.”

The Navy is supposed to start buying the new ship in , according to the service’s year shipbuilding plan, though it’s unclear how its forthcoming force structure assessment will affect those plans. In his recent speech on the Defense Department’s plan for a plus ship Navy, Defense Secretary Mark Esper made no mention of the future large surface combatant.

To avoid another costly failure, such as the canceled next-generation cruiser or severely truncated DDG program, the service is harkening back to its successful Arleigh Burke program, the mainstay of the Navy’s surface combatant program for the past 30 years, Gilday said. Much like on the forthcoming Constellation-class frigates, the service plans to install fielded systems on the new ship and upgrade them over time.

“So think DDG (that’s exactly what we did): We had a new hull but we put Aegis on it,” Gilday said. “We put known systems that were reliable and were already fielded out in the fleet. That’s kind of the idea. I call it DDG Next to kind of right-size it. Smaller than a Zumwalt but packing some heat nonetheless.”

The Navy estimates it would need $22 billion annually in constant year dollars to execute its old shipbuilding plan, though the Congressional Budget Office put the estimate more than 30 percent higher. A major driver in the difference between the CBO and Navy estimate was the cost of a future large surface combatant, according the Congressional Research Service.

The emergence of hypersonic missiles has been a driving factor in the Navy’s desire to field a new large surface combatant since such weapons wont fit in the current vertical launch system cells on Burke-class destroyers and existing cruisers. They will, however, fit in the Virginia Payload Module being built into the Block V Virginia submarines awarded last year.

About David B. Larter

David B. Larter was the naval warfare reporter for Defense News.


  • The U.S. Navy has begun working on a next-generation guided missile destroyer.
  • DDG(X) will replace both existing cruisers and destroyers across the fleet.
  • The Navy expects to begin construction of the first ship in , with dozens more to follow.

The U.S. Navy has officially started developing a new guided missile destroyer class. The tentatively titled DDG(X) will replace the older Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers (shown above) and early Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers (below).

The ships will be the backbone of the Navy’s fleet into the midst century, protecting carriers and high-end ships while also providing offensive firepower of their own.


The Navy kicked off DDG(X) by establishing a new program office to oversee development, Defense News reports. The office will manage DDG(X)’s “design, technical data package development, construction, testing, fleet introduction and sustainment plans,” with an eye toward ordering the first ship in If everything stays on track, the first ship should enter Navy service around

NurPhotoGetty Images

The Navy operates 22 Cold War-era Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers and 69 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. The Navy produced the Ticonderogas between and and expected to have replaced them by now, but a lack of funding over the last 20 years, when land wars dominated, has stymied the development of a replacement. The Arleigh Burke class, meanwhile, has basically been in continuous production since , upgraded with new technology and a helicopter hangar.

The Navy views the Ticonderogas as bodyguards for high-value warships. The service built the Ticonderogas with SPY-1A air defense radars, the Aegis Combat System, and missile silos to repel mass missile attacks targeting aircraft carriers and their battle groups. The Arleigh Burke destroyers have a similar loadout, but with newer SPY-1D radars and missile silos. The Burke destroyers can pinch hit as fleet defenders if necessary, and also hunt submarines and conduct attacks against land targets with cruise missiles.

HandoutGetty Images

DDG(X) has big shoes to fill. The Navy’s new thinking appears to cast the ship as the main escort for carrier and amphibious groups while the new Constellation-class guided missile frigates and littoral combat ships take on lesser roles.

The new destroyer will emphasize “a new hull form, an efficient Integrated Power System, and greater endurance,” according to Defense News. The power system will be essential for integrating the laser weapons that will probably go on DDG(X). The new destroyer will likely have at least one or two lasers—short-range weapons with adjustable power levels that can blind drones or shoot down incoming missiles.

U.S. Navy via

The DDG(X) will also likely have a multi-purpose 5-inch gun and large silos capable of carrying the Navy’s new hypersonic missiles. The ships will need standard-sized Mk. 41 silos for air defense missiles, long-range anti-submarine rockets, cruise missiles, and anti-ship missiles. The loss of the Ticonderoga class, with their silos, means the next-generation ship will likely have at least silos, and maybe more.

The ship’s armament will probably include ship-launched lightweight anti-submarine torpedoes, a hangar and flight deck capable of supporting one or two MH Seahawk helicopters, and facilities for launching and recovering smaller uncrewed surface and subsurface ships. The facilities could also support uncrewed aerial vehicles.

The age of the Ticonderoga class, which should be retiring right now, means the Navy must keep the DDG(X) program on time and on track. The ship could share many of the same features as the latest version of the Arleigh Burke class in order to reduce risk.

&#; Now Watch This:

Kyle MizokamiWriter on Defense and Security issues, lives in San Francisco.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at

  1. Ftx us coins
  2. Hi target fabrics
  3. Hollywood light shade
  4. Seen clearly synonym
  5. Logitech truck shifter

Zumwalt-class destroyer

Destroyer class of the US Navy

Future USS Zumwalt's first underway at sea.jpg

USS Zumwalt undergoing sea trials in December

Class overview
BuildersBath Iron Works
Operators&#;United States Navy
Preceded by Arleigh Burke class
Succeeded&#;byArleigh Burke class Flight III
In commission15 October [3]
General characteristics
TypeGuided missile destroyer
Displacement15, long tons (15,&#;t)[4]
Length&#;ft (&#;m)[4]
Beam&#;ft (&#;m)
Draft&#;ft (&#;m)
Speed30&#;kn (56&#;km/h; 35&#;mph)[4]
Complement +28 in air detachment[4]
Sensors and
processing systems
AN/SPY-3 Multi-Function Radar (MFR) (X bandactive electronically scanned array)[7]
Aircraft carried
Aviation facilitiesFlight deck and enclosed hangar for up to two medium-lift helicopters

The Zumwalt-class destroyer is a class of three United States Navy guided missile destroyers designed as multi-mission stealth ships with a focus on land attack. It is a multi-role class that was designed for secondary roles of surface warfare and anti-aircraft warfare and originally designed with a primary role of naval gunfire support. The class design emerged from the DD "land attack destroyer" program as "DD(X)" and was intended to take the role of battleships in meeting a congressional mandate for naval fire support.[12] The ship is designed around its two Advanced Gun Systems, their turrets and magazines, and unique Long Range Land Attack Projectile (LRLAP) ammunition.[9] LRLAP procurement was cancelled, rendering the guns unusable,[9] so the Navy re-purposed the ships for surface warfare.[13]

These ships are classed as destroyers, but they are much larger than any other active destroyer or cruiser in the US Navy.[14] The vessels' distinctive appearance results from the design requirement for a low radar cross-section (RCS). The Zumwalt class has a wave-piercingtumblehome hull form whose sides slope inward above the waterline, which dramatically reduces RCS by returning much less energy than a conventional flare hull form. The appearance has been compared to that of the historic USS Monitor[15] and her famous antagonist CSS Virginia.[16][14]

The class has an integrated electric propulsion (IEP) system that can send electricity from its turbo-generators to the electric drive motors or weapons, the Total Ship Computing Environment Infrastructure (TSCEI),[17] automated fire-fighting systems, and automated piping rupture isolation.[18] The class is designed to require a smaller crew and to be less expensive to operate than comparable warships.

The lead ship is named Zumwalt for Admiral Elmo Zumwalt and carries the hull number DDG Originally, 32 ships were planned, with $ billion research and development costs spread across the class. As costs overran estimates, the quantity was reduced to 24, then to 7, and finally to 3, significantly increasing the cost per ship to $ billion ($ billion including R&D costs)[1][19][20][2] and well exceeding the per-unit cost of a nuclear-powered Virginia-classsubmarine ($ billion). In April , the total program cost was $ billion.[2][21][22] The dramatic per-unit cost increases eventually triggered a Nunn–McCurdy Amendment breach and cancellation of further production,[23] so the Navy reverted to building more Arleigh Burke destroyers.


Background and funding[edit]

Many of the features were developed under the DD program ("21st Century Destroyer"), which was originally designed around the Vertical Gun for Advanced Ships (VGAS). In , Congress cut the DD program by half as part of the SC21 program; to save it, the acquisition program was renamed as DD(X) and heavily reworked.

Originally, the Navy had hoped to build 32 destroyers. That number was reduced to 24, then to 7, due to the high cost of new and experimental technologies.[19][full citation needed] On 23 November , the Defense Acquisition Board approved a plan for simultaneous construction of the first two ships at Northrop Grumman's Ingalls yard in Pascagoula, Mississippi and General Dynamics' Bath Iron Works in Bath, Maine. However, at that date, funding had yet to be authorized by Congress.

In late December , the House and Senate agreed to continue funding the program. The U.S. House of Representatives allotted the Navy only enough money to begin construction on one destroyer, as a "technology demonstrator". The initial funding allocation was included in the National Defense Authorization Act of [19] However, this was increased to two ships by the appropriations bill[24] approved in September , which allotted US$ billion to the DDG program.[25]

On 31 July , U.S. Navy acquisition officials told Congress that the service needed to purchase more Arleigh Burke-classdestroyers, and no longer needed the next-generation DDG class,[26] Only the two approved destroyers would be built. The Navy said the world threat picture had changed in such a way that it made more sense to build at least eight more Burkes, rather than DDGs.[26] The Navy concluded from fifteen classified intelligence reports that the DDGs would be vulnerable to forms of missile attacks.[27] Many Congressional subcommittee members questioned that the Navy completed such a sweeping re-evaluation of the world threat picture in just a few weeks, after spending some 13 years and $10 billion on the development of the surface ship program known as DD, then DD(X), and finally DDG[26] Subsequently, Chief of Naval Operations Gary Roughead cited the need to provide area air defense and specific new threats such as ballistic missiles and the possession of anti-ship missiles by groups such as Hezbollah.[28] The mooted structural problems have not been discussed in public. Navy SecretaryDonald Winter said on 4 September that "Making certain that we have – I'll just say, a destroyer – in the '09 budget is more important than whether that’s a DDG or a DDG 51".[29]

On 19 August , Secretary Winter was reported as saying that a third Zumwalt would be built at Bath Iron Works, citing concerns about maintaining shipbuilding capacity.[30] House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha said on 23 September that he had agreed to partial funding of the third DDG in the Defense authorization bill.[31]

A 26 January memo from John Young, the US Department of Defense's (DoD) top acquisition official, stated that the per ship price for the Zumwalt-class destroyers had reached $ billion, 81 percent over the Navy's original estimate used in proposing the program, resulting in a breach of the Nunn–McCurdy Amendment, requiring the Navy to re-certify and re-justify the program to Congress or to cancel its production.[32]

On 6 April , Defense SecretaryRobert Gates announced that DoD's proposed budget will end the DDG program at a maximum of three ships.[33] Also in April, the Pentagon awarded a fixed-price contract with General Dynamics to build the three destroyers, replacing a cost-plus-fee contract that had been awarded to Northrop Grumman. At that time, the first DDG destroyer was expected to cost $ billion, the second approximately $ billion, and the third even less.[34]

What had once been seen as the backbone of the Navy's future surface fleet[35] with a planned production run of 32, has since been replaced by destroyer production reverting to the Arleigh Burke class after ordering three Zumwalts.[36] In April , the U.S. Naval Institute stated the total cost of the three Zumwalt ships is about $ billion with research and development costs, which is an average of $ billion per ship.[2]


Representatives from Naval Sea Systems Command and Bath Iron Works sign a construction contract at the Pentagon, February

In late , the program entered the detailed design and integration phase, for which Raytheon was the Mission Systems Integrator. Both Northrop Grumman Ship Systems and General Dynamics Bath Iron Works shared dual-lead for the hull, mechanical, and electrical detailed design. BAE Systems Inc. had the advanced gun system and the MK57 VLS. Almost every major defense contractor (including Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman Sperry Marine, L-3 Communications) and subcontractors from nearly every state in the U.S. were involved to some extent in this project, which was the largest single line item in the Navy's budget. During the previous contract, development and testing of 11 Engineering Development Models (EDMs) took place: Advanced Gun System, Autonomic Fire Suppression System, Dual Band Radar [X-band and L-band], Infrared, Integrated Deckhouse & Apertures, Integrated Power System, Integrated Undersea Warfare, Peripheral Vertical Launch System, Total Ship Computing Environment Infrastructure (TSCEI), Tumblehome Hull Form. The decision in September to fund two ships meant that one could be built by the Bath Iron Works in Maine and one by Northrop Grumman's Ingalls Shipbuilding in Mississippi.[24]

Northrop Grumman was awarded a $90M contract modification for materials and production planning on 13 November [37] On 14 February , Bath Iron Works was awarded a contract for the construction of Zumwalt&#;(DDG), and Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding was awarded a contract for the construction of Michael Monsoor&#;(DDG), at a cost of $ billion each.[38]

Deckhouse of USS Zumwaltbeing installed in December

On 11 February , full-rate production officially began on the first Zumwalt-class destroyer.[39] Construction on the second ship of the class, Michael Monsoor, began in March [40] The keel for the first Zumwalt-class destroyer was laid on 17 November [40] This first vessel was launched from the shipyard at Bath, Maine on 29 October [41]

The construction timetable in July was:[42]

  • October DDG starts construction at Bath Iron Works[43][44][45]
  • September DDG starts construction at Bath Iron Works.[46]
  • April DDG starts construction at Bath Iron Works[47]
  • April DDG initial delivery
  • May DDG delivery
  • March Initial operating capability
  • Fiscal DDG delivery

The Navy planned for Zumwalt to reach initial operating capability (IOC) in The second ship, Michael Monsoor, was commissioned in , and the third ship, Lyndon B. Johnson&#;(DDG), was to have reached IOC in [48]

Ships in class[edit]

In April , the Navy announced plans to name the first ship of the class Zumwalt after former Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Elmo R. "Bud" Zumwalt Jr.[42] The vessel's hull number would be DDG, which abandoned the guided missile destroyer sequence used by the Arleigh Burke-classdestroyers (DDG–), and continued the previous "gun destroyer" sequence from the last of the Spruance class, Hayler&#;(DD).

DDG would be named for Master-at-Arms 2nd Class Michael A. Monsoor, the second Navy SEAL to receive the Medal of Honor in the Global War on Terror, the navy announced on 29 October [49]

On 16 April , Secretary of the NavyRay Mabus announced that DDG would be named for former naval officer and U.S. President, Lyndon B. Johnson.[50]

The Navy chose to use an unusual two-part commissioning scheme for the ships. The initial commissioning was done prior to weapons systems integration, and the ships were placed in the status of "in commission, special", before sailing to San Diego for weapons installation and final acceptance. The first two ships used this approach, while the last one will use the more traditional approach with formal commissioning after final acceptance.[51]


As of January , the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that four out of 12 of the critical technologies in the ship's design were fully mature. Six of the critical technologies were "approaching maturity", but five of those would not be fully mature until after installation.[55]


Main article: Stealth ship

Despite being 40% larger than an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, the radar cross-section (RCS) is more akin to that of a fishing boat, according to a spokesman for Naval Sea Systems Command.[56] The tumblehome hull and composite deckhouse reduce radar return. Overall, the destroyer's angular build makes it "50 times harder to spot on radar than an ordinary destroyer."[56]

Zumwalt's deckhouse in transit in November

The acoustic signature is comparable to that of the Los Angeles-classsubmarines. Water sleeting along the sides, along with passive cool air induction in the mack, reduces infrared signature.[citation needed]

The composite deckhouse encloses much of the sensors and electronics.[57] In , Defense News reported there had been problems sealing the composite construction panels of this area; Northrop Grumman denied this.[58]

The U.S. Navy solicited bids for a lower cost steel deckhouse as an option for DDG, the last Zumwalt destroyer, in January [59][60][61] On 2 August , the US Navy announced it was awarding a $ million contract to General Dynamics Bath Iron Works to build a steel deckhouse for destroyer Lyndon B. Johnson (DDG).[61] The U.S. Naval Institute stated "the original design of the ship would have had a much smaller RCS, but cost considerations prompted the Navy over the last several years to make the trades in increasing RCS to save money"[62]

To improve detection in non-combat situations by other vessels, such as traversing busy shipping channels or operating in inclement weather, the Navy is testing adding onboard reflectors to improve the design's radar visibility.[63]

The usefulness of the stealth features has been questioned. The class's role was to provide Naval Surface Fire Support, which requires the ship to be in typically crowded near-shore waters, where such large and distinctive ships can be tracked visually, and any surface ship becomes non-stealthy when it begins firing guns or missiles.[64]

Tumblehome wave piercing hull[edit]

Main articles: Tumblehome and Wave-piercing hull

The Zumwalt-class destroyer reintroduces the tumblehome hull form, a hull form not seen to this extent since the Russo-Japanese War in It was originally put forth in modern steel battleship designs by the French shipyard Forges et Chantiers de la Méditerranée in La Seyne, Toulon. French naval architects believed that tumblehome, in which the beam of the vessel narrowed from the waterline to the upper deck, would create better freeboard, greater seaworthiness, and, as Russian battleships were to find, would be ideal for navigating through narrow constraints (e.g. canals).[65] On the downside, the tumblehome battleships leaked – partly due to their riveted construction – and could be unstable, especially when turning at high speed.[66] The tumblehome has been reintroduced in the 21st century to reduce the radar return of the hull. The inverted bow is designed to cut through waves rather than ride over them.[67][68] The stability of this hull form in high sea states has caused debate among naval architects, with some charging that "with the waves coming at you from behind, when a ship pitches down, it can lose transverse stability as the stern comes out of the water—and basically roll over."[69]

Advanced Gun System[edit]

Main article: Advanced Gun System

The Advanced Gun System is a &#;mm naval gun, two of which are installed in each ship. This system consists of an advanced &#;mm gun and its Long Range Land Attack Projectile (LRLAP).[70] This projectile is a rocket with a warhead fired from the AGS gun; the warhead has an 11&#;kg / 24&#;lb bursting charge and has a circular error probable of 50 meters. This weapon system has a range of 83 nautical miles (&#;km).[56] The fully automated storage system has room for up to rounds.[67][70] The barrel is water-cooled to prevent overheating and allows a rate of fire of 10 rounds per minute per gun. Using a Multiple Rounds Simultaneous Impact (MRSI) firing tactic the combined firepower from a pair of turrets gives each Zumwalt-class destroyer initial strike firepower equivalent to 12 conventional M field guns.[71][72] The Zumwalts use ballast tanks to lower themselves into the water for a reduced profile in combat.[73] In November , the Navy moved to cancel procurement of the LRLAP, citing per-shell cost increases to $,–$1 million resulting from trimming of total ship numbers of the class. The Navy is monitoring research on alternative munitions, but since the AGS was tailor-made to use the LRLAP, modifications will be needed to accept different shells, which is unlikely to happen by the time the first Zumwalt vessel enters operational service in , leaving it unable to fulfill the naval gunfire support role it was designed for.[74][75][76]

Lyndon B. Johnson, the last Zumwalt, was being considered for the installation of a railgun in place of one of the &#;mm naval guns after the ship is built. This is feasible because the installed Rolls-Royce turbine generators are capable of producing 78 megawatts (,&#;hp), enough for the electrically powered weapon.[77][78] In , US Navy funding for railgun development ceased with no plans to continue the project.[79]

In March , the Navy solicited information from industry on how to reconfigure the Zumwalt-class ships to host hypersonic missiles. Since they would be too large to fit in the VLS tubes, it has been suggested that the two AGS, having no use since the cancellation of its ammunition, could be replaced with three-pack advanced payload modules to fulfill a conventional prompt strike deterrence role.[80]

Peripheral Vertical Launch System[edit]

Main article: Vertical launching system

The Peripheral Vertical Launch System (PVLS) is an attempt to avoid intrusion into the prized center space of the hull while reducing the risk of loss of the entire missile battery or of the ship in a magazine explosion. The system consists of pods of VLS cells distributed around the outer shell of the ship, with a thin steel outer shell and a thick inner shell. The design of the PVLS directs the force of any explosion outward rather than into the ship. Additionally, this design reduces the loss of missile capacity to the affected pod only.[67][81]

Aircraft and boat features[edit]

Two spots are available on a large aviation deck with a hangar capable of housing two full size SH helicopters.[82] Boats are handled within a stern mounted boat hangar with ramp. The boat hangar's stern location meets high sea state requirements for boat operations.[67]


Diagram of AN/SPY-3 vertical electronic pencil beamradar conex projections

Originally, the AN/SPY-3active electronically scanned array primarily X band radar was to be married with Lockheed Martin's AN/SPY-4S band volume search radar. Raytheon's X-band, active-array SPY-3 Multi-Function Radar (MFR) offers superior medium to high altitude performance over other radar bands, and its pencil beams give it an excellent ability to focus in on targets. SPY-3 will be the primary radar used for missile engagements.[83] A report by Congress' investigative arm, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), questioned that the technology leap for the Dual Band Radar would be too much.[6]

On 2 June , Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter announced that they will be removing the SPY-4 S-band Volume Search Radar from the DDG's dual-band radar to reduce costs as part of the Nunn–McCurdy certification process.[36] Due to the SPY-4 removal, the SPY-3 radar is to have software modifications so as to perform a volume search functionality. Shipboard operators will be able to optimize the SPY-3 for either horizon search or volume search. While optimized for volume search, the horizon search capability is limited. The DDG is still expected to perform local area air defense.[36][84] This system is thought to provide high detection and excellent anti-jamming capabilities, particularly when used in conjunction with the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC). It is, however, not reported if the CEC system will be installed on the Zumwalt-class destroyers upon commissioning, but it is scheduled for eventual incorporation in the ship type.[85][86]

In that the Zumwalt class has no AN/SPG fire-control radars that are used for terminal guidance for Standard and Evolved Sea-Sparrow Missiles (ESSMs) anti-aircraft engagements, the SPY-3 will generate Interrupted Continuous Wave Illumination (ICWI) rather than the Continuous Wave Illumination of the AN/SPG fire-control radars. Significant software modifications are required to support the ICWI, transmit and receive link messages to the missiles. Standard Missile (SM)-2 IIIA and the ESSM slated for Zumwalt class require modified missile receivers, transmitters, encoders, decoders and a redesigned digital signal processor to work with the ship's system. These modified missiles will not be able to be used on Aegis class ships.[87]

The SPY 3 had to be reprogrammed to do the volume search that the SPY-4 was supposed to have performed. With the duties of volume and surface search and terminal illumination there is concern that a large scale missile attack could overwhelm a radar's resource management capacity. In such a case the radar may be unable to properly manage incoming threats or guide offensive missiles.[87]

The Dual Band Radar in its entirety (SPY-3 & SPY-4) is to be installed only on the Gerald R. Ford-classaircraft carrierGerald R. Ford. With the development of the AMDR (Air and Missile Defense Radar), it seems unlikely the DBR is to be installed on any other platforms, as it is on the DDG class, or in total, as it is on Gerald R. Ford. The Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR) is a new design surveillance radar that is to be installed in the second Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier, John F. Kennedy, in lieu of the Dual Band radar. The America-class amphibious assault ships starting with LHA-8 and the planned LX(R)-class amphibious warfare ships will also have this radar.[88]

AMDR (Air and Missile Defense Radar) was originally proposed to be installed in the hull of DDG type under the CG(X) program. However, due to cost growth, the CG(X) program was canceled. The AMDR has continued in fully funded development for installation on the DDG Flight III ships. However, a smaller than optimally planned aperture of 14 feet (&#;m), the AMDR for the Flight III ships is to be less sensitive than the 22 feet (&#;m) variant that had been planned for CG(X).[citation needed]

A study to place the AMDR on a DDG hull was done with the foot (&#;m) aperture primarily for Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) purposes. In that the DDG does not have an Aegis combat system, as does the DDG class ships, but rather the Total Ship Computing Environment Infrastructure (TSCEI), the Radar/Hull Study stated:

that developing a BMD capability "from scratch" for TSCE was not considered viable enough by the study team to warrant further analysis, particularly because of the investment already made in the Aegis program. The navy concluded that developing IAMD software and hardware specifically for TSCE would be more expensive and present higher risk. Ultimately, the navy determined that Aegis was its preferred combat system option. Navy officials stated that Aegis had proven some BMD capability and was widely used across the fleet, and that the navy wanted to leverage the investments it had made over the years in this combat system, especially in its current development of a version that provides a new, limited IAMD capability.[89]

Common Display System[edit]

The ship's Common Display System is nicknamed "keds": Sailors operate keds via trackballs and specialized button panels, with the option to the interface by using touchscreens. The technology array allows sailors to monitor multiple weapons systems or sensors, saving manpower, and allowing it to be steered from the ops center.[56]


A dual-band sonar controlled by a highly automated computer system will be used to detect mines and submarines. It is claimed that it is superior to the Burke's sonar in littoral ASW, but less effective in blue water/deep sea areas.[90]

  • Hull-mounted mid-frequency sonar (AN/SQS)
  • Hull-mounted high-frequency sonar (AN/SQS)
  • Multi-function towed array sonar and handling system (AN/SQR)[91]

Although Zumwalt ships have an integrated suite of undersea sensors and a multi-function towed array, they are not equipped with onboard torpedo tubes, so they rely on their helicopters or ASROC missiles to destroy submarines that the sonar picks up.[73]

Propulsion and power system[edit]

The "Zumwalts" use an Integrated Power System (IPS), which is a modern version of a turbo-electric drive system. The IPS is a dual system, with each half consisting of a gas turbine prime mover directly coupled to an electrical generator, which in turn provides power for an electric motor that drives a propeller shaft. The system is "integrated" because the turbo-generators provide electrical power for all ship systems, not just the drive motors. The system provides much more available electrical power than is available in other types of ship.[citation needed]

The DDX proposed to use permanent-magnet motors (PMMs) within the hull, an approach that was abandoned in favor of a more conventional induction motor. An alternate twin pod arrangement was rejected as the ramifications of pod drives would require too much development and validation cost to the vessel. The PMM was considered to be another technology leap and was the cause of some concern (along with the radar system) from Congress.[67] As part of the design phase, Northrop Grumman had the world's largest permanent magnet motor, designed and fabricated by DRS Technologies.[92] This proposal was dropped when the PMM motor failed to demonstrate that it was ready to be installed in time.

Zumwalt has Converteam's Advanced Induction Motors (AIM), rather than DRS Technologies' Permanent Magnet-Synchronous Motors (PMM).

The exact choice of engine systems remains somewhat controversial at this point. The concept was originally for an integrated power system (IPS) based on in-hull permanent magnet synchronous motors (PMMs), with Advanced Induction Motors (AIM) as a possible backup solution. The design was shifted to the AIM system in February in order to meet scheduled milestones; PMM technical issues were subsequently fixed, but the program has moved on. The downside is that AIM technology has a heavier motor, requires more space, requires a "separate controller" to be developed to meet noise requirements, and produces one-third the amount of voltage. On the other hand, these very differences will force time and cost penalties from design and construction changes if the program wishes to "design AIM out" …[93]

The system reduces the ship's thermal and sound signature. The IPS has added to weight growth in the Zumwalt-class destroyer as noted by the GAO.[6]

Electric power is provided by two Rolls-Royce MT30gas turbines ( MW ea.)[5] driving Curtiss-Wrightelectric generators.[6]

The second ship of the class, Michael Monsoor, will require a new gas turbine after she experienced problems during sea trials resulting in damaged turbine blades.[94]

Automation and fire protection[edit]

Automation reduces crew size on these ships: the Zumwalt-class destroyer's minimum complement is , less than half of needed by "similar warships".[56] Smaller crews reduce a major component of operating costs.[67] Ammunition, food, and other stores are all mounted in containers able to be struck below to magazine/storage areas by an automated cargo handling system.[67]

Water spray or mist systems are proposed for deployment in the Zumwalt-class destroyer, but the electronic spaces remain problematic to the designers. Halon/Nitrogen dump systems are preferred but do not work when space has been compromised by a hull breach. The GAO has noted this system as a potential problem yet to be addressed.[67][95]

Computer network[edit]

The Total Ship Computing Environment Infrastructure (TSCEI) is based on General Electric Fanuc Embedded Systems' PPC7A and PPC7D single-board computers[96] running LynuxWorks' LynxOSRTOS.[97] These are contained in 16 shock, vibration, and electromagnetic protected Electronic Modular Enclosures.[98]Zumwalt carries 16 pre-assembled IBM blade servers.[99] The network allows a seamless integration of all on-board systems, e.g. sensor fusion, easing operation and mission planning.[]


Lawmakers and others questioned whether the Zumwalt-class costs too much and whether it provides the capabilities that the military needs. In , the Congressional Budget Office estimated the acquisition cost of a DD(X) at $ billion to $4 billion in dollars, $ billion more than the navy's estimate.[] The National Defense Authorization Act For the Fiscal Year (Report of the Committee on Armed Services House of Representatives on H.R. Together With Additional And Dissenting Views) stated:

The committee understands there is no prospect of being able to design and build the two lead ships for the $ billion budgeted. The committee is concerned that the navy is attempting to insert too much capability into a single platform. As a result, the DD(X) is now expected to displace more than 14, tons and by the navy's estimate, cost almost $ billion each. Originally, the navy proposed building 32 next-generation destroyers, reduced that to 24, then to 7, and finally to 3, in order to make the program affordable. In such small numbers, the committee struggles to see how the original requirements for the next generation destroyer, for example providing naval surface fire support, can be met.[]

Mike Fredenburg analyzed the program for National Review after Zumwalt broke down in the Panama Canal in November , and he concluded that the ship's problems "are emblematic of a defense procurement system that is rapidly losing its ability to meet our national security needs."[64] Fredenburg went on to detail problems relating to the skyrocketing costs, lack of accountability, unrealistic goals, a flawed concept of operations, the perils of designing a warship around stealth, and the failure of the Advanced Gun System. He concludes:

The Zumwalt is an unmitigated disaster. Clearly it is not a good fit as a frontline warship. With its guns neutered, its role as a primary anti-submarine-warfare asset in question, its anti-air-warfare capabilities inferior to those of our current workhorse, the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, and its stealth not nearly as advantageous as advertised, the Zumwalt seems to be a ship without a mission.[64]

Ballistic missile/air defense capability[edit]

In January , John Young, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition, was so confident of the DD(X)'s improved air defense over the Burke class that between its new radar and ability to fire SM-1, SM-2, and SM-6, "I don't see as much urgency for [moving to] CG(X)" – a dedicated air defense cruiser.[]

On 31 July , Vice Admiral Barry McCullough (Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Integration of Resources and Capabilities) and Allison Stiller (Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Ship Programs) stated that "the DDG cannot perform area air defense; specifically, it cannot successfully employ the Standard Missile-2 (SM-2), SM-3 or SM-6 and is incapable of conducting Ballistic Missile Defense."[90] Dan Smith, president of Raytheon's Integrated Defense Systems division, has countered that the radar and combat system are essentially the same as other SMcapable ships, "I can’t answer the question as to why the Navy is now asserting … that Zumwalt is not equipped with an SM-2 capability".[29] The lack of anti-ballistic missile capability may represent a lack of compatibility with SM-2/SM The Arleigh Burke-class ships have BMD systems with their Lockheed-Martin AEGIS tracking and targeting software,[] unlike the DDG's Raytheon TSCE-I targeting and tracking software,[96] which does not, as it is not yet complete, so while the DDG, with its TSCE-I combat system, does have the SM-2/SM-3 missile system installed, it does not yet have the BMD/IAMD upgrade planned for the derived CG(X).[36] The Aegis system, on the other hand was used in the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System. Since the Aegis system has been the navy's chief combat system for the past 30 years when the navy started a BMD program, the combat system it was tested on was the Aegis combat system. So while the DDG platform and the DDG platform are both SM-2/SM-3 capable, as a legacy of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System only the DDG with the Aegis combat system is BMD capable, although the DDG's TSCE-I combat system had both BMD and IAMD upgrades planned. And in view of recent intelligence that China is developing targetable anti-ship ballistic missiles based on the DF,[][] this could be a fatal flaw.

On 22 February James "Ace" Lyons, the former commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, stated that the DDG's technology was essential to a future "boost phase anti-ballistic missile intercept capability".[]

In , the Congressional Research Service reported that the DDG cannot currently be used for BMD because the BMD role was deferred to the DDG derived CG(X) program (the DDG's had the strike role, the CG had the BMD role, but they shared both the SM3 missile, and the TSCE-I), the proposed radar of the CG(X) was much larger (22')[] and used much more energy and cooling capacity than the DDG's.[36] Since then, the foot (&#;m) radar system has been canceled with the CG(X) and it has been determined that a foot (&#;m) radar could be used either on DDG or on DDG, though it would not have the performance the navy predicts would be needed "to address the most challenging threats".[] Were the CG(X)'s BMD requirement adopted by the DDG, the DDG would have to get the TSCE-I upgrade slated for the CG(X) to support that mission.[]

The study that showed a cost benefit to building Flight III Arleigh Burke-class destroyer with enhanced radars instead of adding BMD to the Zumwalt-class destroyers assumed very limited changes from the Flight II to the Flight III Burkes. However, costs for the Flight III Burkes have increased rapidly "as the possible requirements and expectations continue to grow."[] While the Flight III design and costs have been studied by the navy, there is very little reliable data available on what the cost would be to modify a DDG–class ship to provide a BMD capability. However, if the Air Missile Defense Radar is adopted in common on both the Flight III Burkes and the Zumwalts and if they were both upgraded to the same combat system then the only limitation of the Zumwalts in this role would be their limited missile magazines.[verification needed][]

With the awarding of the development contract to the next generation Air and Missile Defense S-Band Radar to Raytheon, deliberation to put in place this radar on the Zumwalt-class destroyer is no longer being actively discussed.[]

It is possible for the Zumwalt-class destroyers to get the more limited BMD hardware and software modifications that would allow them using their existing SPY-3 radar and Cooperative Engagement Capability to utilize the SM-3 missile and have a BMD capability similar to the BMD-capable Ticonderoga-classcruisers and Burke-class Flight IIa destroyers. Procurement of a BMD specific version of the Zumwalt-class destroyer was also proposed.[36][]

Zumwalt PLAS cells can launch the SM-2 Standard missile, but the ships have no requirement for ballistic missile defense. The tubes are long and wide enough to incorporate future interceptors, and although the ship was designed primarily for littoral dominance and land attack, Raytheon contended that they could become BMD-capable with few modifications.[73]

Missile capacity[edit]

The original DD design would have accommodated between and Vertical launching system cells.[] However, the final DDG design provides only 80 cells.[]Zumwalt uses MK cells which are larger than the Mk cells found on most American destroyers.

Each VLS cell can be quad packed with RIM Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles (ESSM). This gives a maximum theoretical load of ESSM missiles. The ESSM is considered a point defense weapon not generally used for fleet area defense.

The Zumwalt-class destroyer is not an Aegis system. It uses instead the class-unique Total Ship Computing Environment Infrastructure (TSCEI) integrated mission system. The peripheral vertical launch system (PVLS) is capable of accommodating all Standard missile types.[] It has not been publicly stated if the TSCE will be modified to support the Standard missile or the ballistic missile defense mission.

Naval fire support role[edit]

Main article: United States battleship retirement debate

The design concept for the Zumwalt class developed from the "Land Attack Destroyer (DD 21)" development effort. A primary goal for DD 21 was to provide sea-based fire support for on-shore troops, as part of the force mix that would replace the retiring Iowa-class battleships as mandated by Congress. There was considerable skepticism that the Zumwalt class could succeed in this role.

In summary, the committee is concerned that the navy has foregone the long range fire support capability of the battleship, has given little cause for optimism with regard to meeting near-term developmental objectives, and appears unrealistic in planning to support expeditionary warfare in the mid-term. The committee views the navy's strategy for providing naval surface fire support as 'high risk', and will continue to monitor progress accordingly.

—&#;Evaluation of the United States Navy's naval surface fire support program in the National Defense Authorization Act of , []

The Zumwalt class was intended to provide naval surface fire support (NSFS) using the AGS and additional land attack using Tomahawk missiles from its PVLS launchers. As deployed, the Zumwalt class cannot provide NSFS, since there are only 90 rounds of ammunition available that are compatible with the AGS.[10] The Zumwalt class was re-purposed as surface attack vessels and are no longer intended for use as land attack destroyers.

Tumblehome design stability[edit]

Sea Jetout of the water and showing the unique hull design

The stability of the DDG hull design in heavy seas has been a matter of controversy. In April , naval architect Ken Brower said, "As a ship pitches and heaves at sea, if you have tumblehome instead of a flare, you have no righting energy to make the ship come back up. On the DDG , with the waves coming at you from behind, when a ship pitches down, it can lose transverse stability as the stern comes out of the water – and basically, roll over."[] The Navy decided not to use a tumblehome hull in the CG(X) cruiser before the program was canceled, which may suggest that there were concerns regarding Zumwalt's sea-keeping abilities.[] However, the tumblehome hull proved seaworthy in a 1/4-scale test of the hull design named Sea Jet.[]

The Advanced Electric Ship Demonstrator (AESD) Sea Jet funded by the Office of Naval Research (ONR) is a foot (meter) vessel located at the Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division, Acoustic Research Detachment in Bayview, Idaho. Sea Jet was operated on Lake Pend Oreille, where it was used for test and demonstration of various technologies. Among the first technologies tested was an underwater discharge waterjet from Rolls-Royce Naval Marine, Inc. called AWJ

While underway during the spring of , USS Zumwalt sailed through a storm causing sea state six conditions off the coast of Alaska. The test indicated that the Zumwalt class possesses greater stability compared to typical hull forms. During an interview, Captain Andrew Carlson, the commanding officer of USS Zumwalt at the time, related "All told I'd rather be on that ship than any other ship I've been on." According to Captain Carlson, during the storm, he summoned his executive officer from his cabin to inform him of the sea state six conditions. Based on the rolls he had been experiencing in his cabin, the executive officer thought that at most they were at sea state three, where wave height only reaches a maximum of four feet (&#;m). A combination of the Zumwalt class's hull form, rudder stop locations and propeller size contribute to its improved seakeeping.[]

Secondary guns[edit]

In , a Critical Design Review (CDR) of the DDG led to the selection of the Mk 57&#;mm (&#;in) cannon to defend the destroyer against swarming attacks by small fast boats; the Mk has a rate of fire of rpm and a range of 9&#;nmi (17&#;km; 10&#;mi). From then to , various analysis efforts were conducted to assess potential cost-saving alternatives. Following a assessment using the latest gun and munition effectiveness information, it was concluded that the Mk 46 30&#;mm (&#;in) Gun System was more effective than the Mk with increased capability, reduced weight, and significant cost avoidance. The Mk 46 has a rate of fire of rpm and a range of &#;nmi (&#;km; &#;mi).[11]

Naval experts have questioned the decision to replace the close-in swarm defense guns of the Zumwalt-class destroyers with ones of decreased size and range. The 57&#;mm can engage targets at two to three miles, while the 30&#;mm can only start to engage at around one mile, inside the range of a rocket-propelled grenade fired from a small boat. However, the DDG program manager said that the 57&#;mm round's lethality was "significantly over-modeled" and "not as effective as modeled" in live test-firing, and "nowhere near meeting the requirements"; he admitted that the results were not what he expected to see. When the Naval Weapons Laboratory re-evaluated the Mk 46, it met or exceeded requirements and performed equal to or better than the 57&#;mm in multiple areas, even coming just ahead of the 76&#;mm (3&#;in) naval cannon. A 30&#;mm gun mount also weighs less, around 2 tons compared to 12–14 tons for the 57&#;mm, but the navy is adamant that weight had nothing to do with the decision.[][verification needed]

See also[edit]



  1. ^ ab"GAOSP DEFENSE ACQUISITIONS Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs"(PDF). US Government Accountability Office. March p.&#; Archived(PDF) from the original on 24 September Retrieved 15 July
  2. ^ abcde"Navy Requires $ Million More to Complete Zumwalt-Class Due to Shipyard Performance"Archived 18 October at the Wayback Machine., 6 April
  3. ^Bubala, Mary (16 October ). "Historic And Cutting Edge USS Zumwalt Commissioned in Baltimore". WJZ-TV. Archived from the original on 18 October Retrieved 16 October
  4. ^ abcde"Destroyers – DDG fact file". U.S. Navy. 28 February Archived from the original on 17 December Retrieved 2 April
  5. ^ abcdKasper, Joakim (20 September ). "About the Zumwalt Destroyer". AeroWeb. Archived from the original on 22 October Retrieved 25 October
  6. ^ abcdGAOR Progress of the DD(X) Destroyer Program. U.S. Government Accountability Office. 14 June Archived from the original on 4 October Retrieved 11 October
  7. ^CRS RL Navy DDG and DDG Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress. CRS, 14 June
  8. ^"MK 57 Vertical Launch System"Archived 24 September at the Wayback Machine. Raytheon
  9. ^ abcLaGrone, Sam (11 January ). "No New Round Planned For Zumwalt Destroyer Gun System; Navy Monitoring Industry". USNI News. U.S. Naval Institute. Archived from the original on 3 March Retrieved 2 March
  10. ^ ab"Navy Planning on Not Buying More LRLAP Rounds for Zumwalt Class". 7 November
  11. ^ abNavy Swaps Out Anti-Swarm Boat Guns on DDGsArchived 31 October at the Wayback Machine –, 5 August
  12. ^Section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year (Public Law ; Stat. )
  13. ^Eckstein, Megan (4 December ). "New Requirements for DDG Focus on Surface Strike". USNI News. U.S. Naval Institute. Archived from the original on 4 March Retrieved 2 March
  14. ^ abLundquist, Edward. "The Navy's Battlewagon of the 21st Century". Archived from the original on 5 April Retrieved 5 April
  15. ^"New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer Is Not Your Father's Tin Can". Los Angeles Times. 5 July Archived from the original on 20 May
  16. ^"". Archived from the original on 5 April Retrieved 5 April
  17. ^John Pike. "Navy Approves Raytheon's Zumwalt Total Ship Computing Environment Infrastructure". Archived from the original on 5 March Retrieved 8 January
  18. ^Sanchez, Lucia (January–March ). "Electromagnetic Railgun – A "Navy After Next" Game Changer". CHIPS – the Department of the Navy Information Technology Magazine. Archived from the original on 11 November Retrieved 13 July
  19. ^ abcNDAA pp. 69–
  20. ^"Cutting-edge Navy warship being built in Maine". Fox News. 12 April Archived from the original on 15 April Retrieved 12 April
  21. ^The US Navy's budget request for two Virginias in fiscal year (FY) was $5, million, including $2,M for advance funding from previous years.
  22. ^"RL, Navy Virginia (SSN) Class Attack Submarine Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress"(PDF). Congressional Research Service. 27 May Archived(PDF) from the original on 6 October Retrieved 17 October
  23. ^"Root Cause Analyses of Nunn-McCurdy Breaches – Zumwalt-Class Destroyer, Joint Strike Fighter, Longbow Apache, and Wideband Global Satellite," Rand Corporation (); see Vol. 1, Ch. 3 via 19 October at the Wayback Machine
  24. ^ abTaylor, Andrew (26 September ). "House OKs $70B for Iraq, Afghanistan". The Washington Post. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 9 July Retrieved 19 September
  25. ^th Congress :Department of Defense Appropriations Act, . (–) US Government Printing Office. 29 September Archived from the original on 16 February Retrieved 11 October
  26. ^ abc"Navy: No Need to Add DDG s After All". Navy Times. Gannett Government Media. 31 July Retrieved 25 January [permanent dead link]
  27. ^Smith, R. Jeffrey; Nakashima, Ellen (8 March ). "Pentagon's Unwanted Projects in Earmarks". The Washington Post. pp.&#;A Archived from the original on 26 December Retrieved 19 September
  28. ^Cavas, Christopher P (26 September ). "Roughead pushes for littoral combat ship". Navy Times.
  29. ^ abCavas, Christopher P (16 September ). "Troubled DDG faces shipyard problems". Navy Times.
  30. ^Ewing, Philip (19 August ). Lawmaker: Third DDG Far From Done Deal. Defense News.[dead link]
  31. ^Scully, Megan (24 September ). "Negotiators agree to buy more Fs, Zumwalt destroyers". Congress Daily. Archived from the original on 14 January Retrieved 11 October
  32. ^Cavas, Christopher P. (2 February ), "New Destroyer Emerges in US Plans", Defense News, p.&#;1
  33. ^Bennett, John T.; Osborn, Kris (6 April ). "Gates Reveals DoD Program Overhaul". Defense News.[dead link]
  34. ^Drew, Christopher (18 April ). "General Dynamics To Build New Destroyer". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 1 July Retrieved 28 February
  35. ^Pike, John. "CG(X) Next Generation Cruiser". Archived from the original on 3 June Retrieved 15 December
  36. ^ abcdefO'Rourke, Ronald (10 March ). "Navy DDG and DDG Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress"(PDF). Congressional Research Service. Archived(PDF) from the original on 28 March Retrieved 4 April
  37. ^"U.S. Navy Awards Northrop Grumman $90 Million Long-Lead Material Contract for DDG ". Northrop Grumman Corporation. 13 November Archived from the original on 2 January Retrieved 11 October
  38. ^"Navy Awards Contracts for Zumwalt Class Destroyers" (Press release). Navy News Service. 14 February Archived from the original on 9 April Retrieved 16 May
  39. ^"BIW News February "(PDF). General Dynamics Bath Iron Works. 1 March Archived from the original(PDF) on 14 April
  40. ^ ab"Keel Laid for First DDG Destroyer". NavSea. NOV Archived from the original on 29 October
  41. ^Tarantola, Andrew (29 October ). "America's Newest and Deadliest Destroyer Has Finally Set Sail". Archived from the original on 26 March Retrieved 12 April
  42. ^ ab"GAO, Defense Acquisitions: Cost to Deliver Zumwalt-Class Destroyers Likely to Exceed Budget". Government Accountability Office. 31 July Archived from the original on 13 October Retrieved 29 September
  43. ^"First Zumwalt-Class Destroyer to Join U.S. Navy Fleet by late ". 25 November Archived from the original on 27 November Retrieved 27 November
  44. ^"Raytheon awarded $75 million for DDG Zumwalt class Destroyer program". 18 December Archived from the original on 19 December Retrieved 19 December
  45. ^"U.S. Navy Christened USS Zumwalt (DDG ), New Class of Destroyer". 13 April Archived from the original on 16 April Retrieved 15 April
  46. ^"Future Zumwalt class Destroyer USS Michael Monsoor (DDG ) Deckhouse Successfully Integrated". 17 November Archived from the original on 22 November Retrieved 23 November
  47. ^"General Dynamics Bath Iron Works Awarded $ Million for DDG Deckhouse, Hangar and Launch-System Modules". 6 August Archived from the original on 8 September Retrieved 11 August
  48. ^Osborn, Kris (14 January ). "DDG Preps for Heavy Weather Trials". Archived from the original on 16 January Retrieved 15 January
  49. ^Clayton, Cindy (30 October ). "Navy to name newest destroyer after SEAL who died in Iraq". The Virginian-Pilot. Archived from the original on 22 May Retrieved 22 April
  50. ^"Navy Names Zumwalt Class Destroyer USS Lyndon B. Johnson". Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs), United States Department of Defense. 16 April Archived from the original on 15 May Retrieved 16 April
  51. ^ abBurgess, Richard R. (28 April ). "Geurts: Third Zumwalt DDG Will Be Commissioned After Combat Systems Activation". Seapower Magazine. Retrieved 12 February
  52. ^Public Affairs, NAVSEA PEO Ships (24 April ). "Navy accepts delivery of destroyer USS Zumwalt".
  53. ^"USS Michael Monsoor (DDG ) Commissioning". Archived from the original on 28 January Retrieved 27 January
  54. ^"The US Navy's last stealth destroyer is in the water". 11 December
  55. ^"GAO Assessments of Major Weapon Programs.Archived 6 December at the Wayback Machine" Government Accountability Office
  56. ^ abcdePatterson, Thom; Lendon, Brad (14 June ). "Navy's stealth destroyer designed for the video gamer generation". CNN. Archived from the original on 10 October Retrieved 29 October
  57. ^"Zumwalt Class Destroyer Integrated Composite Deckhouse & Apertures (IDHA)". Raytheon Company. 22 March Archived from the original on 7 January
  58. ^Cavas, Christopher P (12 September ). "Will DDG Produce Any Ships at All?". Defense News.[dead link]
  59. ^Fabey, Michael (25 January ). "U.S. Navy Seeks Alternate Deckhouse For DDG". Aerospace Daily & Defense Report. Archived from the original on 3 November Retrieved 30 July
  60. ^Schneider, David (31 July ). "The Electric Warship". IEEE Spectrum. IEEE. Archived from the original on 4 August Retrieved 1 August
  61. ^ ab"Navy Switches from Composite to Steel". Defense News. 2 August Archived from the original on 20 November
  62. ^"New External DDG Mast Reduces Ship's Stealth From Original Design". USNI News. 3 March Archived from the original on 18 October
  63. ^Tarantola, Andrew. "Stealth on the Navy's newest destroyers might be too good". Archived from the original on 12 April Retrieved 11 April
  64. ^ abcFREDENBURG, MIKE. "How the Navy's Zumwalt-Class Destroyers Ran Aground". Archived from the original on 20 December Retrieved 19 December
  65. ^Forczyk. p. 18, 76
  66. ^Forczyk p. 32, 76
  67. ^ abcdefgh"DDG Zumwalt / DD(X) Multi-Mission Surface Combatant". 1 September Archived from the original on 24 December Retrieved 29 July
  68. ^"Wave Piercing Tumblehome Hull". Raytheon Company. 22 March Archived from the original on 19 November
  69. ^Crucchiola, Jordan. "The New $3B USS Zumwalt Is a Stealthy Oddity That May Already Be a Relic". Wired. Archived from the original on 17 October Retrieved 17 October
  70. ^ ab"Advanced Gun System (AGS)". BAE Systems. Archived from the original on 12 November Retrieved 14 June
  71. ^"Zumwalt-Class Destroyer Critical Technologies". Raytheon. Archived from the original on 8 August
  72. ^"Next-Gen Naval Gunfire Support: The USA's AGS & LRLAP". Defense Industry Daily. 23 February Archived from the original on 3 June Retrieved 10 May
  73. ^ abcEwing, Philip (16 April ). "SAS Approach of the Gray Elephant". DoD Buzz. Archived from the original on 19 April Retrieved 16 April
  74. ^Seck, Hope Hodge (12 January ). "Navy's Stealthy Mega-Destroyer Still Doesn't Have a Round for Its Gun". Archived from the original on 15 January Retrieved 15 January
  75. ^Cavas, Christopher P. (6 November ). "New Warship's Big Guns Have No Bullets". DefenseNews.
  76. ^Navy Planning on Not Buying More LRLAP Rounds for Zumwalt ClassArchived 11 November at the Wayback Machine –, 7 November
  77. ^Sharp, David. "Admiral: Shipbuilders won't install railgun on new Navy destroyers". Archived from the original on 11 October Retrieved 8 November
  78. ^Dent, Steven (15 February ). "The Navy wants to deploy railguns on its latest destroyer". AOL. Archived from the original on 22 August Retrieved 19 September
  79. ^Trevithick, Joseph. "The Navy's Railgun Looks Like It's Finally Facing The Axe In New Budget Request". The Drive. Retrieved 1 August
  80. ^What should become of the Zumwalt class? The US Navy has some big ideas.Navy Times. 25 March
  81. ^"Zumwalt Class Destroyer Peripheral Vertical Launch System (PVLS) Advanced VLS". Raytheon Company. 22 March Archived from the original on 7 January
  82. ^

The US Navy has begun constructing an updated version of its Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer (DDG)

According to the service&#;s statement, the future Jack H. Lucas DDG will be the first vessel in its class built in the Flight III configuration.

Huntington Ingalls Industries’ Ingalls Shipbuilding division is constructing the vessel in Pascagoula, Mississippi. 

Major Upgrades 

The major part of the upgrade will see the vessel being outfitted with Raytheon Missiles & Defense’s AN/SPY-6(V)1 Air and Missile Defense Radar, allowing the destroyer to better detect and track airborne threats such as aircraft, cruise, and ballistic missiles, USNI News wrote.

The new vessel will also see a replacement of the three Rolls Royce 3-megawatt generators on the Flight IIA ships with Rolls Royce 4-megawatt generators.

“Flight III ships will provide cutting edge Integrated Air and Missile Defense capability to include significantly greater detection range and tracking capacity,” DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class Program Manager, Capt. Seth Miller explained.

Arleigh Burke-Class Destroyers

The DDG 51 Arleigh Burke is a multi-mission guided-missile destroyer, “designed to operate offensively and defensively, independently, or as units of Carrier Strike Groups, Expeditionary Strike Groups, and Surface Action Groups in multi-threat environments that include air, surface and subsurface threats.”

The navy currently operates 69 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.with 20 more on contract and 11 ships in various stages of construction. The first destroyer of the class joined the service in


Destroyer next gen

Then he ruffles his hair, strokes his shoulders, caresses his nipples. Dimka feels a growing excitement and begins to tremble. The penis fluttered, puzzled, and mom puts her hand there, lightly tugs at it. Sits down on his haunches and suddenly.

U.S. Navy Next-Generation Destroyer Is Coming

And, together with Gershenzon, who snapped off his faithful nosed Galina, went to air on the upper deck. The water felt chilly. The first dawn of adult life was engaged. As it was sung in one old song: "Forward to meet the dawn, comrades in the struggle, we will pave the way for ourselves with bayonets and buckshot!" Makarov had no.

Now discussing:

The door to one of the rooms was missing. Entering the room, they immediately found Ash sitting on a mattress. So we arrived to visit you, Dredonna said ironically.

1771 1772 1773 1774 1775