Military Review

A new concept of a promising destroyer DDG (X) for the US Navy


Possible DDG(X) ship exterior

In the early thirties, the US Navy plans to receive the lead destroyer of a new project, known as DDG (X). In the near future, the full development of this project will begin, but for now the fleet is developing requirements and determining the general appearance of the ship. A new version of the concept project, showing the main wishes and how to fulfill them, was shown a few days ago.

Wishes and approaches

On January 11-13, the 34th National Symposium of the Surface Water fleet (Surface Navy Association). During this event, various issues of the further development of the surface forces of the US Navy were considered, incl. promising projects of ships and vessels. In particular, the head of this program, Captain David Hart, made a report on the future destroyer DDG (X).

The program manager noted that the promising destroyer is intended to replace existing and planned ships of the Arleigh Burke type. According to current plans, the latter will be built at least until the end of the twenties, and their operation will last until the sixties. However, at the beginning of the next decade, the Berks will begin to supplement the promising DDG (X) destroyers.

For all its advantages, the destroyer Arleigh Burke is not without flaws. This ship, as a surface platform, has limited volume and carrying capacity for the installation of new equipment or weapons. In addition, there are power supply restrictions. All this makes it difficult to carry out new upgrades to obtain all the desired features and create a significant reserve for the future.

Destroyer DDG(X) and its equipment

It is assumed that the DDG (X) will be an evolutionary development of the existing Arleigh Burke ships. It will take into account all the shortcomings of its predecessors, as well as use well-mastered ideas and the required number of new solutions. The revolutionary approach with the massive introduction of new ideas and components was prudently rejected, remembering the results of the failed Zumwalt project.

In the course of such an evolution, it is proposed to create a surface platform with the necessary characteristics and a margin for modernization. It will initially be equipped with existing and new components, assemblies and samples. In the future, as needed and the appearance of promising products, modernization of various scales will be carried out.

Another proposal aimed at simplifying the project will be implemented as part of development work. The maximum testing of components and assemblies is planned to be carried out on ground stands. Marine carriers will receive the most developed and ready-made equipment, which no longer requires complex and lengthy fine-tuning.

Work plan

Before the end of the current financial year, the Navy is going to start developing a preliminary draft DDG (X). Over the next few years, the final version of the project will be created, according to which the first ships of the series will be built. The contract for the lead destroyer is scheduled for FY2028. Shortly after its signing, the bookmark will take place. It will take several years to build, and in the early thirties it will become part of the Navy.

Plans for the next ships of the series are still unknown. In addition, it is not specified when the modernization of destroyers will begin with the replacement of electronic and missile weapons, the installation of lasers, etc. Perhaps these questions will be resolved only by the mid-thirties or later.

USS Daniel Inouye (DDG-118) is one of the last Arleigh Burke-class destroyers built.

The volumes of the planned series and the timing of its construction have not yet been called. Perhaps the Navy does not yet have such plans and is still dealing with more pressing issues.

surface platform

In the report on the topic DDG (X) all the main features of the future ship were sounded. Also, specific samples of equipment and opportunities offered for use in the basic version of the project and in its further development are named. In addition, they showed a hypothetical image of the destroyer.

Outwardly, the concept is vaguely similar to modern American ships, although there are also characteristic differences. A hull with an elongated expanding nose, a traditional stem and sides without open openings was used. The construction of two superstructures is envisaged. One will traditionally accommodate the bridge and the necessary electronic equipment, and the other will house a hangar for a helicopter. A significant part of the systems and assemblies are planned to fit inside the case.

New requirements of the SWAP-C type (Size, Weight, Power, Cost) were presented to the project, associated with the need to create a reserve of characteristics for further upgrades. The ship must have compartments for the installation of all necessary products and a margin of 5% by area and 10% by weight. It is necessary to use an integrated power system with a power reserve of 20% over the calculated load. The cooling system should immediately have a power reserve of 20% and the possibility of increasing it up to 40%.

In the DDG (X) project, it is required to reduce the visibility of the ship by two or more times in comparison with the current Berks. You also need to improve performance and increase survivability. The design should take into account the issues of operation at high latitudes.

Mk 41 Universal Launcher

It should be possible to change the body with new features. So, in the course of a future upgrade, a Destroyer Payload Module section with additional weapons can be added in the center of the hull.

Due to the new power plant and related systems, it is necessary to improve driving performance. The Navy wants to increase the cruising range by 50% or more (from the original 4400 miles at Arleigh Burke), and the duration of patrols in a given area by 120%. Fuel efficiency should increase by a quarter.

It is curious that in a recent report the desired advantages of the ship over existing models are indicated, but a number of key characteristics are not named. In particular, the dimensions and displacement, the characteristics of the power plant, running parameters, etc. are unknown or not even determined.

Combat potential

The Navy wants to get a multi-purpose ship, similar in basic capabilities to the Arleigh Burke. He must solve the tasks of air defense and anti-submarine defense orders, as well as carry out strikes on various objects. At the same time, it is necessary to ensure the growth of all the main characteristics in comparison with today's ships.

It is planned to make the AN / SPY-6 (V) 1 AMDR multi-purpose radar, the active phased array of which will be located on both add-ons, the main means of review and detection. In the first version of the project, it is proposed to use AFAR 14 feet high, and during modernization, 18-foot ones will be used, with an increased number of transceiver elements. The next step will be the use of a new generation of radar type FPA. The ship will also receive the AN / SPQ-9B surveillance and fire control radar, which will later be replaced by the promising FXR.

Launch of an SM-6 missile from an Mk 41 mount on an Arleigh Burke-class ship

The DDG(X) concept version carries two Mk 41 launchers with 16 cells each - one on the nose, the second between the superstructures. The number of missiles can be increased by the DPM section with the Mk 41 installation. In addition, a new unified launcher for containers of a larger diameter is expected to appear in the future. In place of the 16-missile Mk 41, it will be possible to place 12 cells of this type.

It is noteworthy that in terms of the number of cells in the launcher, the promising destroyer from the report is seriously inferior to the existing Arleigh Burke ships. At the same time, there is enough space in the hull and on the deck for additional installations. Perhaps the presentation did not begin to reveal the full potential of the design, even in its intended form. Accordingly, real ships will receive more launchers and in this respect will not be inferior to the current pennants.

The ship in the basic configuration will be able to use the entire range of missile weapons compatible with the Mk 41. These can be strike, anti-ship, anti-aircraft and other missiles. A prospective install will keep compatibility with this weapons, and will also be able to use future hypersonic or other missiles.

The defense of the near zone will initially be provided by two anti-aircraft missile systems RIM-116 RAM with 21 missiles each. In the future, they can be supplemented or replaced by promising combat lasers with a power of 600 kW. In addition, they want to introduce a 150-kilowatt laser.

Surface future

The recently published data on the DDG(X) destroyer project are of great interest. In this case, first of all, it is necessary to pay attention not to the expected increase in characteristics, proposed components, etc., but to the main approaches used in shaping the appearance of the ship.

Anti-aircraft missile system RIM-116 RAM

The US Navy has extensive experience building and operating the Arleigh Burke destroyers. In addition, they suffered a resounding and expensive setback with the "revolutionary" Zumwalt project. Based on this experience, it was decided to use an evolutionary approach in the new DDG(X) program, excluding overly complex and bold ideas and solutions.

At the same time, "modesty" in the early stages of the project does not preclude further development with the gradual introduction of more complex samples and ideas. However, the Navy intends to exercise caution in such processes and will not rush if such an acceleration threatens the project and / or shipbuilding program.

The proposed approach looks sensible and, apparently, allows the US Navy to expect to obtain all the desired results - at least in the design and construction of the first version of the destroyer. A recent report shows that the DDG(X) could be a reasonably successful modern ship with broad combat capabilities. And in the future, it is possible to carry out the desired upgrades with clear consequences.

In general, the DDG (X) project in its current form of a preliminary concept gives the Pentagon certain reasons for optimism and allows you to make realistic plans for the future. Whether such ships will be able to repeat all the successes of the existing Berks is a big question. However, it can be assumed that they will easily surpass the unsuccessful Zumwalt series and make a real contribution to the development of the fleet. However, the real results of the new project will appear only in 10-12 years, and until then all the tasks will lie on the Arleigh Burke destroyers - with all their advantages and disadvantages.
Photos used:
US Navy, Wikimedia Commons

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site:

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. The comment was deleted.
    1. Doccor18
      Doccor18 18 January 2022 18: 31
      And yesterday about the same...
      Unfortunately, there is nothing to discuss yet. The Americans, apparently, have not yet fully decided on the parameters themselves, but we have a series of articles going on ...
      1. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik 18 January 2022 19: 39
        Quote: Doccor18

        Unfortunately, there is nothing to discuss yet. The Americans, apparently, themselves have not fully decided on the parameters.

        The picture in the presentation was given to demonstrate the possibilities being laid. For example, in terms of modularity, RAM is changed to a laser, MK 41 to UVP for hypersonic missiles, etc.
        We also need to hold a competition for the creation of a ship, and there the final look will be determined.

        The presentation itself, for those who are interested:
      2. Yuri V.A
        Yuri V.A 19 January 2022 02: 33
        What will be determined there, if Zamvolt's hull really showed better seaworthiness than Burke's, then only the question of the location of launchers for several dozen heavy missiles will remain. If not, they will leave the appearance of a steroid Burke with slick add-ons.
        1. German A
          German A 19 January 2022 09: 50
          Where did the data about the hull come from and how was it determined when ships of different displacements with different power plants and drives? Or during design? Are test results available?
          1. Yuri V.A
            Yuri V.A 19 January 2022 10: 40
            Test results, as usual, are limited. At Zamvolt, VI is comparable to the new project, otherwise Burke's hull will be stretched.
            1. German A
              German A 20 January 2022 08: 13
              10000+ is a loose concept, or rather there is no official data. Maybe in some secret documents of the Ministry of Defense? Well, they don't write about it on the forums.
              The main thing is not to forget the 2 guns with invading shells ...
              1. Yuri V.A
                Yuri V.A 20 January 2022 11: 05
                What secrets could there be? This will be a massive ship in 30-50 hulls, so VI will be 13-15 kt
      3. yehat2
        yehat2 5 May 2022 12: 18
        Quote: Doccor18
        apparently, they themselves have not fully decided on the parameters, but we have a series of articles

        on the other hand, the strategy is obvious - the United States is trying to strengthen the presence of its ships near the vulnerable points of geopolitical opponents. If such ships begin to constantly stand near Murmansk, Vladivostok, St. Petersburg, Petropavlovsk-Kamchastsky, changing shifts and not violating agreements, stand near Sevastopol, Novorossiysk and Sochi, it will turn out to be a completely unhappy alignment - about half of the large cities in a battery of hundreds of cruise missiles, and this is not counting the other presence - from the Baltic states to Central Asia and submarines. Moreover, to implement this strategy, they will need literally 20 ships - and we have a gun at our heads, despite all the thousands of tanks that have been mothballed. In addition, we won’t be able to answer - our shipbuilding is already a generation behind, and soon there will be two, there are no prerequisites for breakthroughs, and the SO in Ukraine is already clear that it will eat up so many resources that you won’t have to think about a significant increase at sea another 5-10 years, and even this MSC cruiser is blowing bubbles. That's why they talk so much. The only hope is that China will move forward so powerfully that the US simply will not be able to implement its plan.
        Seems like a bleak future to me.
        1. Doccor18
          Doccor18 5 May 2022 14: 52
          Quote: yehat2
          on the other hand, the strategy is obvious - the United States is trying to strengthen the presence of its ships near the vulnerable points of geopolitical opponents.

          This is logical.

          Why keep destroyers only near St. Petersburg and Sochi?
          Quote: yehat2
          Moreover, to implement this strategy, they will need literally 20 ships

          The only good thing for us is that they will not have these "20 ships" soon, because the construction of the Arley Burke Flight III series is just beginning.

          Quote: yehat2
          our shipbuilding is already a generation behind, and soon there will be two, there are no prerequisites for breakthroughs

          The construction of the Fleet cannot be carried out intermittently, neither shaky nor rolly, too complicated, expensive and long process. It is necessary, in the end, to decide for ourselves whether we need a combat-ready modern fleet or not. If it is necessary (there are tasks, opportunities), then you need to take it forever, because you need to bring ships in constantly, annually ... And there can be no half measures, because at sea "half measures" always lead to defeat.

          Quote: yehat2
          The only hope is that China will move forward so powerfully that the US simply will not be able to implement its plan.

          The United States has prepared an enemy for Russia and is preparing for China. First of all, the fleets of the Asian satellites (Taiwan, R. Korea and Japan), as well as Australia, Britain and Canada, will be concentrated against the Chinese Navy. It will be extremely difficult for China to compete with everyone at once, despite the fact that it is now seriously lagging behind in nuclear submarine, anti-submarine and carrier-based aviation ...
          1. yehat2
            yehat2 5 May 2022 15: 56
            Quote: Doccor18
            do we need a combat-ready modern fleet or not

            there is a lot of speculation possible here in terms of
            is a raft with a machine gun a combat-ready fleet? Yes!
            The question should be different - what tasks should the fleet perform. either we will run into passive coastal defense and a small patrol fleet and, like China before, we will receive a US aircraft carrier 200 km from the capital, or the fleet will have broader tasks, not only purely military, but also allowing, if not to make a profit, at least save some money. It is the economy that is often the main reason for the emergence and development of the fleet.
            And what is the Russian fleet doing now for our economy? It all comes down essentially to submarines with nuclear weapons. And this is a criminally miserable doctrine for the fleet.
            Where are the patrol ships that catch poachers or fishermen who, by abusing their license, sell their catch in another country, where is the effective rescue service and many other functions that bring real benefits? And there is nothing! Therefore, move away from your meaningless slogan and talk about the functions of the fleet and its application for the development of the country's economy.

            What follows from this logic? We need to develop ships of military presence in the Arctic, we need at least 3-4 destroyers of the far sea zone with the most modern air defense equipment and radars. We need more high speed patrol ships. Thank God, they have now begun to be made at all, but their performance characteristics are still unsatisfactory. Etc. Not the logic of abstract combat capability, but the logic of performing specific functions, often tied to a real map and other landmarks. The USSR built the combat fleet by 90% based on military doctrine. This was a big mistake. The ratio should be something like this - 70% economic interests and 30% - strategic and others.
            1. Doccor18
              Doccor18 5 May 2022 16: 45
              Quote: yehat2
              there is a lot of speculation possible here in terms of

              Quote: yehat2
              The question should be different - what tasks should the fleet perform.

              You didn't read my comment carefully enough.
              Quote: Doccor18
              If necessary (there are tasks, opportunities)

              Quote: yehat2
              meaningless slogan and

              You will see slogans in the docks of certain maritime states if you read them, and then maybe you will stop being surprised at what is happening around ...
              1. yehat2
                yehat2 6 May 2022 11: 08
                I am not surprised at what is happening at sea, the logic of many events follows clearly from many years of previous actions. I am surprised that people like you do not see the motives for the development of foreign fleets and get hung up only on those ideas that the media throws up. I'm sure you won't understand me.
                read Tirpitz's book - how they built the German fleet, why, maybe some understanding will appear.
  2. T.A.V.
    T.A.V. 18 January 2022 18: 57
    It looks like our "Leader".
    1. yuriy55
      yuriy55 18 January 2022 19: 26
      Looks like is not the right word! Identical twins:

      Both are layouts... lol
      1. T.A.V.
        T.A.V. 18 January 2022 20: 44
        That's it!
      2. lucul
        lucul 18 January 2022 22: 03
        Both are layouts

        Actually, the layout of the Leader is like this)))
        1. yehat2
          yehat2 6 May 2022 14: 00
          don't let the engineers go on vacation to Southeast Asia!
          they don't even draw like that!
      3. Charik
        Charik 20 January 2022 07: 29
        as one prominent figure-DAC-TSARAP said, I wonder who scratches whom?
  3. Dart2027
    Dart2027 18 January 2022 19: 13
    The US Navy has extensive experience building and operating the Arleigh Burke destroyers. In addition, they suffered a resounding and expensive setback with the "revolutionary" Zumwalt project. Based on this experience, it was decided to use an evolutionary approach in the new DDG(X) program, excluding overly complex and bold ideas and solutions.

    To put it simply, they sawed it pretty well on the Zumvolts, but the series is over and they decided to start a new cut.
  4. Kars
    Kars 18 January 2022 19: 45
    No armor, tin can.
    The main goal is to download the military-industrial complex.
    1. URAL72
      URAL72 18 January 2022 20: 24
      Nice to see you Kars! Personally, I'm interested in ship armor as an increase in icebreaking capabilities.
      1. yehat2
        yehat2 6 May 2022 14: 01
        Quote: URAL72
        Personally, I'm interested in the armor of ships as an increase

        and mental decline
  5. zxc15682
    zxc15682 18 January 2022 22: 16
    I would remove the art, a useless thing for this ship.
    1. yehat2
      yehat2 6 May 2022 14: 03
      and would get a highly specialized ship that would be afraid of a minesweeper with a 76mm gun or a motor boat with Somali tourists. The artillery mount is not so annoying with such a displacement.
  6. A009
    A009 19 January 2022 10: 25
    They wrote less about the Russian layout of the atomic "Leader" than about it, also a layout, but from elves. Strange "love" for foreign. And constructive criticism in the part - "these are only mock-ups" and so on, not much.
  7. Radikal
    Radikal 9 March 2022 18: 08
    Does anything resemble the ship in the first picture? In my opinion - our "Leader". winked