Jump to content

Zumwalt-class destroyer: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
MBK004 (talk | contribs)
72,668 edits
m Reverted edits by 192.206.187.61 (talk) to last version by 82.3.242.144
Rearrange 4 sections on politics into one :-), general cleanup, improve refs, add third ship and ABM defense
Line 6: Line 6:
}}
}}
{{Infobox Ship Class Overview
{{Infobox Ship Class Overview
|Name=
|Name=Zumwalt
|Builders=[[Northrop Grumman]]<br>[[General Dynamics]]
|Builders=[[Northrop Grumman]]<br>[[General Dynamics]]
|Operators={{USN flag|2006|20}} [[United States Navy]]
|Operators={{USN flag|2006|20}} [[United States Navy]]
Line 13: Line 13:
|Subclasses=
|Subclasses=
|Cost=
|Cost=
|Built range=October 2008 (forecast) <ref name="GAO-08-804">{{cite web|url=http://www.gao.gov/htext/d08804.html | title=Defense Acquisitions: Cost to Deliver Zumwalt-Class Destroyers Likely to Exceed Budget | date=2008-070-31 | publisher=Government Accountability Office }} GAO-08-804 </ref>
|Built range=
|In service range=
|In service range= April 2013 (forecast)<ref name="GAO-08-804"/>
|In commission range=
|In commission range= March 2015 (forecast)<ref name="GAO-08-804"/>
|Total ships building=
|Total ships building=
|Total ships planned=[[USS Zumwalt (DDG-1000)|USS ''Zumwalt'']], two more planned
|Total ships planned=[[USS Zumwalt (DDG-1000)|USS ''Zumwalt'']], 1-2 more planned
|Total ships completed=
|Total ships completed=
|Total ships cancelled=5
|Total ships cancelled=4-5
|Total ships active=
|Total ships active=
|Total ships laid up=
|Total ships laid up=
Line 32: Line 33:
|Ship type=
|Ship type=
|Ship tonnage=
|Ship tonnage=
|Ship displacement=14,564 [[long ton|tons]]<ref>[http://peoships.crane.navy.mil/DDG1000/DDG1000_design_hover.htm Program Executive Office Ships - DDG1000<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>
|Ship displacement=14,564 [[long ton|tons]]<ref name="NGSS">{{cite web|url=http://www.ddg1000.com/overview/ddg1000_brief.php | title=DDG 1000 Flight I Design|date= 2007|publisher=Northrop Grumman Ship Systems}}</ref>
|Ship tons burthen=
|Ship tons burthen=
|Ship length=600&nbsp;[[foot (length)|ft]] (183&nbsp;m)
|Ship length={{convert|600|ft|m|1}}
|Ship beam=79.1&nbsp;ft (24.1&nbsp;m)
|Ship beam={{convert|79.1|ft|m}}
|Ship height=
|Ship height=
|Ship draught=
|Ship draught=
|Ship draft=27.6&nbsp;ft (8.4&nbsp;m)
|Ship draft={{convert|27.6|ft|m}}
|Ship depth=
|Ship depth=
|Ship hold depth=
|Ship hold depth=
Line 69: Line 70:
|}
|}


The '''''Zumwalt''-class destroyer''' (also known either as the '''DD(X)''' or '''DDG-1000''') is a planned class of [[United States Navy]] [[destroyer]]s, designed as multi-mission ship with a focus on land attack. The class is a scaled-back project that emerged after funding cuts to the larger [[DD-21]] vessel program. The [[lead ship]] is named [[USS Zumwalt (DDG-1000)|''Zumwalt'']] for Admiral [[Elmo R. Zumwalt, Jr.|Elmo Zumwalt]].
The '''''Zumwalt''-class destroyer''' ('''DDG-1000''', previously known as the '''DD(X)''') is a planned class of [[United States Navy]] [[destroyer]]s, designed as multi-mission ship with a focus on land attack. The class is a scaled-back project that emerged after funding cuts to the larger [[DD-21]] vessel program. The ''Zumwalt''-class destroyers are multi-role and designed for surface warfare, anti-aircraft, and naval fire support. They take the place of the battleships in filling the former congressional mandate for naval fire support, though the requirement was reduced to allow them to fill this role.


The DDG-1000 is planned to feature the following: a low radar profile; an integrated power system, which can send electricity to the electric drive motors or weapons, which may someday include [[railgun]]s; a total ship computing environment infrastructure (TSCE-I), serving as the ship's primary LAN and as the hardware-independent platform for all of the ship's software ensembles; automated fire-fighting systems and automated piping rupture isolation. The destroyer is being designed to require a smaller crew and be less expensive to operate than comparable warships. It will have a [[wave-piercing]] "[[tumblehome]]" hull form whose sides slope inward above the waterline. This will reduce the radar cross-section, returning much less energy than a more hard-angled hull form.
On February 14, 2008, [[Bath Iron Works]] was awarded for the construction of the USS ''Zumwalt'' (DDG-1000), and Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding was awarded for the construction of the DDG-1001, with price of $1.4 billion each.<ref>[http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=35020 Zumwalt class contract news<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> According to Defense Industry Daily, the cost is likely going be $3.2 Billion per ship, plus $4 Billion life cycle cost per ship.<ref>[http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/dd-x-program-passes-review-but-opposition-reports-cloud-future-updated-0902/ DD (X) Program Passes Review, But Opposition & Reports Cloud Future (Updated)<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>


The [[lead ship]] is named [[USS Zumwalt (DDG-1000)|''Zumwalt'']] for Admiral [[Elmo R. Zumwalt, Jr.|Elmo Zumwalt]], and carries the hull number DDG-1000. Originally 32 ships were planned for the class, this was progressively cut down to 2,<ref name="ndaa69-70"/> it now looks like three will be built. The Navy expects each ship to cost nearly $3.3bn.<ref name="ndaa69-70">NDAA 2007 - {{citation|title=National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 | url= http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS70125 | date=[[2006-05-05]] | pages=69-70|publisher=(109-452) US Government Printing Office}}</ref>
On July 22, 2008 it was reported that the DDG-1000 Zumwalt class will be discontinued after the first two units have been completed. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,389222,00.html Navy Scraps Plans to Build More Than Two Stealth Destroyers]</ref> However on August 21, 2008 it was revealed that negotiations between Congress and the United States Navy had led to reinstated funding for a third DDG-1000 class vessel. <ref>[http://jdw.janes.com Janes Defence Weekly]</ref>


==Proposal==
==Controversy==
Lawmakers and others have questioned whether the ''Zumwalt'' class costs too much and whether it provides the capabilities the U.S. military needs. In 2005 the [[Congressional Budget Office]] estimated the life-cycle cost of a DD(X) at $3.8-4.0bn in 2007 dollars, $1.1bn more than the Navy's estimate.<ref>{{citation| last= Gilmore | first=J. Michael|title=Statement on The Navy’s DD(X) Destroyer Program before the Subcommittee on Projection Forces | url=http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=6561 |date=[[2005-07-19]] | publisher = US House of Representatives}}</ref>
The ''Zumwalt''-class destroyers are multi-role and designed for surface warfare, anti-aircraft, and naval fire support. They take the place of the battleships in filling the former congressional mandate for naval fire support, though the requirement was reduced to allow them to fill this role. The most numerous Navy main surface warfare combatants are, and will remain for the foreseeable future, the [[Arleigh Burke class destroyer|''Arleigh Burke''-class destroyers]] and [[Ticonderoga class cruiser|''Ticonderoga''-class cruisers]]. All are part of the [[Aegis combat system|Aegis]] system.


Specific issues have been raised about the design :
The DDG-1000 program resulted from a large re-organization of the [[DD21]] program when Congress cut its budget by over 50% as part of the [[SC21 (United States)|SC21]] program of the 1990s.


===Ballistic missile/air defence capability===
Originally, the Navy had hoped to build 32 of these destroyers. That number was later reduced to 24, then to 7, due to the high cost of new and experimental technologies to be incorporated in the destroyer.<ref name="ndaa69-70">[http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS70125 Taken from the National Defense Authorization Act of 2007, pages 69 and 70]</ref> The U.S. House of Representatives allotted the Navy only enough money to begin construction on one DDG-1000 destroyer as a "technology demonstrator." The initial funding allocation for the DDG-1000 destroyer was included in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2007.<ref name="ndaa69-70"/>.
On [[31 July]] [[2008]] Vice Adm. 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 1000 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."<ref name="McCullough">{{citation | last1=McCullough|first1=Vice Adm. Barry | last2=Stiller | first2=Allison | title=Statement on Surface Combatant Requirements and Acquisition Strategy | url=http://www.armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/SPEF073108/McCullough_Stiller_Testimony073108.pdf | date=[[2008-07-31]] | publisher =House Armed Services Committee}}</ref> Dan Smith, president of Raytheon’s Integrated Defense Systems division, has countered that the radar and combat system are essentially the same as other SM-2-capable 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".<ref name="Navytimes080916">{{citation | last1=Cavas | first1=Christopher P|title=Troubled DDG 1000 faces shipyard problems | url=http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/09/navy_zumwalt_091508w/ |date=2008-09-16|journal=Navy Times}}</ref> The lack of anti-ballistic missile capability may represent a lack of compatability with SM-3. In view of new intelligence about China's development of targetable anti-ship ballistic missiles, possibly a homing version of the [[DF-21]],<ref name="Chinese missile">{{citation | last1=Cavas | first1=Christopher P|url=http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3657972 | title=Missile Threat Helped Drive DDG Cut|date=2008-08-04|journal=DefenseNews}}</ref> this could be a fatal flaw.


===Missile capacity===
However, the 2007 appropriations bill passed on [[September 26]], [[2006]] by the House, and later by the Senate, allotted 2.6 billion USD for the funding and building of two ''Zumwalt''-class destroyers. [[Bath Iron Works]] in Maine and Northrop Grumman's Ingalls Shipbuilding in Mississippi were to build one ship each.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://asia.news.yahoo.com/060927/ap/d8kctjdo0.html |title=House OKs $70B for Iraq, Afghanistan}}<!-- Bot generated title --></ref>
The original DD21 design, displacing around 16,000 tons, would have accommodated between 117 and 128 VLS cells.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/dd-21-specs.htm | title=DD-21 Zumwalt|publisher = globalsecurity.org | date=2005-04-27}}</ref> However, the final DDG-1000 design was considerably smaller than that of the DD21, resulting in room for only 80 VLS cells.<ref name="NGSS"/> Given the vessel's expected role, the ''Zumwalt'' class destroyers will likely carry many more [[BGM-109 Tomahawk|Tomahawk missiles]] than either the ''Ticonderoga'' or ''Arleigh Burke'' class ships.


===Naval fire support role===
In July 2008, the Navy announced the cancellation of the DDG-1000 program, officially on concerns about its anti-missile capabilities (but see below). Only the two approved destroyers would be built.[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,389222,00.html] A few weeks later, Navy Secretary Donald Winter was reported as saying that a third Zumwalt would be built at Bath Iron Works, citing concerns about maintaining shipbuilding capacity, but Congress has yet to approve this vessel. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3682875|title=Lawmaker: Third DDG 1000 Far From Done Deal|publisher=Defense News|date=2008-08-19}}</ref>
{{main|United States Naval Gunfire Support debate}}
{{cquote|"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 2007|<ref name="NDAA 2007">{{cite web |url=http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/15may20061514/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/hr109-452/title2.pdf |title=National Defense Authorization Act of 2007 |accessdate=2007-03-12 |format=pdf |pages=Pages 193-194}}</ref>}}
A controversial point of the DD(X) destroyer(s) is their planned naval surface fire support role. The original DD21 and the [[Arsenal ship|Arsenal Ship]] had more serious NFS capabilities, which would meet a Congress-mandated requirement related to the Iowa-class battleships. The requirement was eventually relaxed, the battleships stricken from the registry, and the Navy left with small tonnage ships for NFS or alternative methods such as air support. The official position of the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Navy is that the ''Zumwalt''-class destroyer(s) will be adequate as naval surface gunfire support ships, although there are dissenters.<ref>{{citation | first = Robert | last = Novak |url=http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/06/novak.marines/index.html | title= Losing the Battleships|publisher=CNN|date =[[2005-12-06]]}}</ref>


[[Image:DD(X) Advanced Gun System.jpg|thumb|right||Artist's impression of the Advanced Gun System aboard a DD(X) Destroyer]]
==Design and development==
The DDG-1000 is planned to feature the following: a low radar profile; an [[integrated power system]], which can send electricity to the electric drive motors or weapons, which may someday include [[railgun]]s; a total ship computing environment infrastructure (TSCE-I), serving as the ship's primary LAN and as the hardware-independent platform for all of the ship's software ensembles; automated fire-fighting systems and automated piping rupture isolation. The destroyer is being designed to require a smaller crew and be less expensive to operate than comparable warships. It will have a [[wave-piercing]] "[[tumblehome]]" hull form whose sides slope inward above the waterline. This will reduce the radar cross-section, returning much less energy than a more hard-angled hull form.


While smaller caliber guns (and missiles) have been used for centuries in naval fire support, very large guns have special capabilities beyond that of mid-range calibres. US battleships were re-activated three times after WWII specifically for NFS, and their 16&nbsp;inch gunfire was used in every major engagement of the U. S. from WWII to the Gulf War. A sub-calibre sabot round had already been partially developed for a battleship gun; [[Gerald Bull]] and [[Indian Head Naval Surface Warfare Center|Naval Ordnance Station Indian Head]] tested an 11&nbsp;inch sub-calibre saboted long-range round<ref name="Van Dam">{{citation | first=L. Bruce | last= Van Dam|title = Does the Past Have a Place in the Future? The Utility of Battleships into the Twenty-First Century | url=http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=A367903&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf |format=PDF |publisher=US Army Command and General Staff College| place=Fort Leavenworth, Kansas|date=1999-06-04}}, citing a letter from Major Tracy Ralphs to Senator John Warner on [[1999-02-25]]</ref> in a stretched 16"/45 Mark 6 gun in 1967.<ref name="navweaps">{{cite web | url = http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm |title = United States of America 16"/50 (40.6 cm) Mark 7 | publisher = Tony DiGiulian, navweaps.com | date= 2008-08-09}}</ref> The Advanced Gun Weapon System Technology Program (AGWSTP) evaluated a similar projectile with longer range in the 1980s.<ref name="Van Dam"/> After the battleships were decommissioned in 1992, the AGWSTP became a 5" gun with an intended range of {{convert|180|km|mi}}, which then led to the Vertical Gun for Advanced Ships (VGAS). The original DD-21 was designed around this "vertical gun", but the project ran into serious technology/cost problems and was radically scaled back to a more conventional 6.1&nbsp;inch [[Advanced Gun System]] (AGS). One advantage of this move was that the gun was no longer restricted to guided munitions.
In late 2005, the program entered the detail design and integration phase, for which [[Raytheon]] is the Mission Systems Integrator. Both [[Northrop Grumman]] Ship Systems and General Dynamics Bath Iron Works share dual-lead for the hull, mechanical, and electrical detail design. [[BAE Systems Inc.]] has 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. are involved to some extent in this project, which is 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, Tumblehome Hull Form.


The ''Zumwalt''-class will have two of these 6.1&nbsp;inch (155&nbsp;mm) guns with limited ammunition. The ships can fire a specially designed "guided" artillery shell some {{convert|63|nmi|km}} inland.<ref>NDAA 2007 p194</ref> However, this shell has a reduced warhead size and uses new technology, so most of the shells carried on the DDG would have vastly shorter range.
Many of the ship's features were originally developed under the DD-21 program ("21st Century Destroyer"). In 2001, Congress cut the DD-21 program by half; to save it, the acquisition program was renamed and heavily reworked. According to a [[Government Accountability Office]] report,<ref>[http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-973 Government Accountability Office Report]</ref> milestones include:
*Formal program launch, April 2002
*Preliminary design review, March 2004
*Lead ship authorized, March 2005
*Critical design review, August 2005
*Start fabrication, June 2007
*First ship launched, June 2012


In March 2006, the ''Iowa'' and ''Wisconsin'' were struck from the [[Naval Vessel Register]], having been kept on in part to fill a naval fire support role. However, Congress was "deeply concerned" over the loss of naval surface gunfire support they could provide and noted that "navy efforts to improve upon, much less replace, this capability have been highly problematic."<ref name="ndaa193">NDAA 2007 p193</ref> The U.S. House of Representatives asked that the battleships be kept in a state of readiness should they ever be needed again<ref name="ndaa68">NDAA 2007 p68</ref> and directed the Navy to increase the number of [[Arleigh Burke class destroyer|''Arleigh Burke''-class]] [[destroyer]]s that are currently being modernized.<ref name="ndaa68"/> The modernization includes extending the range of the 5-inch guns on the Flight 1 ships with [[Extended Range Guided Munition|extended range guided munitions (ERGMs)]] that would enable the ships to fire projectiles about forty nautical miles inland;<ref>NDAA 2007 pp67-8,193</ref> <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-45.htm |title=MK 45 5-inch / 54-caliber (lightweight) gun
[[USS Hayler (DD-997)|USS ''Hayler'' (DD-997)]] (1982) was the last [[Spruance class destroyer|''Spruance''-class]] destroyer, and DDG-112 (2010) is to be the last [[Arleigh Burke class destroyer|''Arleigh Burke''-class]] destroyer. The ''Zumwalt's'' hull number will be DDG-1000.
| publisher = Federation of American Scientists | date = 1999-11-26}}</ref> However the ERGM was canceled after it failed firing tests in February 2008.<ref name="ERGM">{{citation | last = Matthews | William | title= Navy ends ERGM funding | url = http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/03/defense_ergm_032408/ | journal = Navy Times | date = [[2008-03-25]]}}</ref> The Navy is studying future options for naval fire support; Alliant Techsystems’ ballistic trajectory extended range munition may be one possibility.<ref name="ERGM"/>


===Structural problems===
==Design elements==
The Zumwalt has an unusually large deckhouse as all the major sensors are buried in its structure.<ref name="IDHA">{{cite web | url=http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/ddg_1000/tech/idha/index.html | title= Zumwalt Class Destroyer Integrated Composite Deckhouse & Apertures (IDHA) | publisher = Raytheon Company | date=2007-03-22}}</ref> It has been claimed that Northrop Grumman has had problems sealing the composite construction panels of this area, but Northrop Grumman has denied this.<ref>{{cite web | last=Cavas | first=Christopher P|title=Will DDG 1000 Produce Any Ships at All? | url=http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3722533 |date=2008-09-12|journal=DefenseNews}}</ref>
[[Image:DD(X).png|thumb|The DDG-1000 with planned features.]]
===Advanced Gun System (AGS)===
The Advanced Gun System is a 155&nbsp;mm [[Naval artillery|naval gun]], two of which would be installed in the proposed class. This system consists of an advanced 155&nbsp;mm gun and the [[Long Range Land-Attack Projectile]]. This projectile is in fact a rocket with a warhead fired from the AGS gun. The warhead weighs 11 kg / 24 [[pound (mass)|lb]] and has a [[Circular error probable|circular error of probability]] of 50 meters. This weapon system has been tested to 110 km / 59 [[nautical mile|nmi]] but ultimately a range of 185 km / 100 nmi is envisioned. The system will be provided with a magazine of 600 rounds or more per weapon and offers a rate of fire of 10 rounds per minute per gun. The barrel is water cooled to prevent over-heating issues. The combined firepower from a pair of turrets gives ''Zumwalt''-class destroyers firepower equivalent to 18 conventional [[M-198]] field guns.<ref name="global_dd-x">[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/dd-x.htm DDG-1000 Zumwalt / DD(X) Multi-Mission Surface Combatant<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><ref>[http://www.raytheon.com/products/ddg_1000/tech/ags/index.html Raytheon Company: Products & Services: Advanced Gun System (AGS)<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>


===Tumblehome design stability===
===Peripheral Vertical Launch System (PVLS)===
The stability of the DDG-1000 hull design in heavy seas has been a matter of controversy. Naval architect Ken Brower said in April 2007 that "as a ship pitches and heaves at sea, if you have tumblehome instead of flare, you have no righting energy to make the ship come back up. On the DDG 1000, 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."<ref>{{Citation | url = http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2007/04/defense-news-will-ddg1000-destroyers-be-unstable/index.php | title = Will DDG-1000 Destroyers Be Unstable? | date = [[2007-04-12]] | publisher = Defense Industry Daily}}, quoting {{citation | first = Christopher P | last = Cavas | title = Is New U.S. Destroyer Unstable? | date = 2007-04-02 | journal = DefenseNews}}</ref> The fact that the CG(X) cruiser will probably not now have a tumblehome hull suggests that there may be problems with the Zumwalt's seakeeping.<ref name="Chinese missile"/>
The Peripheral Vertical Launch System is an attempt to reclaim the prized center space of the hull while increasing the safety of the ship from the loss of the entire missile battery and the loss of the ship in the case of a magazine explosion. The system scatters pods of VLS around the outer shell of the ship having a thin steel outer shell and a thick inner shell. The design of the PVLS would be directing the force of the explosion outward rather than ripping the ship in half. Additionally this design keeps the loss of missile capacity down to just the pod being hit.<ref name="global_dd-x"/><ref>[http://www.raytheon.com/products/ddg_1000/tech/pvls/index.html Raytheon Company: Products & Services: Peripheral Vertical Launch System (PVLS) Advanced VLS<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>


==History==
===Dual-band radar===
===Funding===
The radar will send and receive S-band (high altitude large airspace) and X-band (high altitude near airspace) signals with a common-phase conformal array on the deckhouse. Each band will have its own signal processors, with the returns combined by the display sensor manager. This system is thought to provide high detection and excellent anti-jamming capabilities. But at least one report by Congress' investigative arm, the [[GAO]], raises concerns that it is too much of a technology leap.<ref name="global_dd-x"/><ref>[http://www.raytheon.com/products/ddg_1000/tech/dbr/index.html Raytheon Company: Products & Services: Dual Band Radar (DBR)<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><ref>[http://www.raytheon.com/products/ddg_1000/tech/idha/index.html Raytheon Company: Products & Services: Integrated Composite Deckhouse & Apertures (IDHA)<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><ref name ="d05752r">[http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05752r.pdf GAO-05-752R Progress of the DD(X) Destroyer Program<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>
Many of the ship's features were originally developed under the [[DD21]] program ("21st Century Destroyer"). In 2001, Congress cut the DD-21 program by half as part of the [[SC21 (United States)|SC21]] program; to save it, the acquisition program was renamed as DD(X) and heavily reworked. The [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]] opposes the DDG-1000 and has cut some funding, preferring to build more [[Arleigh Burke class destroyer|''Arleigh Burke'' class]] destroyers and the new [[littoral combat ship]]s. The [[United States Senate|Senate]] supports the DDG-1000 and continues to approve more funding.{{Fact|date=October 2008}}


Originally, the Navy had hoped to build 32 of these destroyers. That number was later reduced to 24, then to 7, due to the high cost of new and experimental technologies to be incorporated in the destroyer.<ref name="ndaa69-70">NDAA 2007 pp69-70</ref> On [[November 23]], 2005, the Defense Acquisition Board approved a plan for simultaneous construction of the first two DDG-1000 ships at Northrop’s Ingalls yard in [[Pascagoula, MS]] and General Dynamics’ [[Bath Iron Works]] in [[Bath, ME]]. However, as of that date, funding had yet to be authorized by Congress.
===Sonar===
A dual-band sonar controlled by a highly automated computer system will be used to find mines and submarines.


In late December 2005, the House and Senate agreed to continue funding the DDG-1000 program. The U.S. House of Representatives allotted the Navy only enough money to begin construction on one DDG-1000 destroyer as a "technology demonstrator." The initial funding allocation for the DDG-1000 destroyer was included in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2007.<ref name="ndaa69-70"/> However, this was increased to two ships by the 2007 appropriations bill<ref name="AP060926">{{citation | last = Taylor | first = Andrew|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601011_2.html |title=House OKs $70B for Iraq, Afghanistan | publisher = Associated Press | date = [[2006-09-26]]}}</ref> approved in September 2006, which allotted US$2,568m to the DDG-1000 program.<ref>{{citation | title = 109th Congress :Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2007 | url =
===Total Computer Environment===
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ289.109 | date = 2006-09-29 | publisher = (109-289) US Government Printing Office}}</ref>
The ship's systems are slated to be controlled by GE Fanuc's [[LynxOS]] [[RTOS]] <ref>[http://www.lynuxworks.com/corporate/news/2007/ge-fanuc-raytheon.php GE Fanuc Embedded Systems Selected By Raytheon For Zumwalt Class Destroyer Program<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>


On [[July 31]] [[2008]], U.S. Navy acquisition officials told Congress that the service needed to purchase more [[Arleigh Burke class destroyer|Arleigh Burke-class destroyer]]s, and no longer needs the next-generation DDG 1000 class,<ref name="noneed">{{cite web| url=http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3654864&c=AME&s=TOP |title=Navy: No Need to Add DDG 1000s After All | publisher= DefenseNews | date=2008-08-01 | accessdate=2008-08-05}}</ref> Only the two approved destroyers would be built. The Navy said the world threat picture had changed in such a way that it now makes more sense to build at least eight more Burkes, rather than DDG 1000s.<ref name="noneed"/> Many Congressional subcommittee members appeared incredulous that the Navy could have conducted 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 surface ship program known as [[DD 21]], then DD(X) and finally, DDG 1000. That figure does not include the money spent for the two hulls (DDG-1000 and DDG-1001).<ref name="noneed"/> Subsequently chief of naval operations Gary Roughead has cited the need to provide area air defence and specific new threats such as ballistic missiles and the possession of anti-ship missiles by groups such as [[Hezbollah]].<ref name="Roughead">{{citation | last=Cavas | first=Christopher P|url=http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/09/defense_roughead_092408/ | title=Roughead pushes for littoral combat ship|date=2008-09-26|journal=Navy Times}}</ref> The mooted structural problems have not been discussed in public. Navy Secretary Donald 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 1000 or a DDG 51".<ref name="Navytimes080916"/>
===Propulsion===
The DDX proposed to use a Permanent Magnet Motor (PMM) within the hull. An alternate twin pod arrangement being rejected as the ramifications of pod drives would require too much development and validation cost to the vessel. The PMM is considered to be another technology leap and is the cause of some concern along with the radar system from Congress.<ref name="global_dd-x"/> As part of the design phase, Northrop Grumman had built the world's largest permanent magnet motor, designed and fabricated by [[DRS Technologies]]. This proposal was dropped when the PMM motor failed to demonstrate that it was ready to be installed in time.


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. <ref>{{citation | first=Philip | last=Ewing | url=http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3682875 | title=Lawmaker: Third DDG 1000 Far From Done Deal|publisher=Defense News|date=2008-08-19}}</ref> House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman [[John Murtha]] said on [[23 September]] [[2008]] that he had agreed to partial funding of the third DDG-1000 in the 2009 Defense authorization bill.<ref>{{citation|last=Scully|first=Megan|title=Negotiators agree to buy more F-22s, Zumwalt destroyers|url=http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=41042 | journal=Congress Daily|date-2008-09-24}}</ref>
Zumwalt will have [[Converteam| 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 2005 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"..."<ref>[http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/dead-aim-or-dead-end-the-usas-ddg1000-zumwalt-class-program-02574/ Dead Aim, Or Dead End? The USA’s DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class Program - Defense Industry Daily<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>


===Construction===
===Integrated Power System (IPS)===
In late 2005, the program entered the detail design and integration phase, for which [[Raytheon]] is the Mission Systems Integrator. Both [[Northrop Grumman]] Ship Systems and General Dynamics Bath Iron Works share dual-lead for the hull, mechanical, and electrical detail design. [[BAE Systems Inc.]] has 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. are involved to some extent in this project, which is 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, Tumblehome Hull Form.
The Integrated Power System (IPS) is a step both forward and backwards. In some ways similar to the old turbo-electric drive, the addition of PMMs and integration of all electrical power systems gives ten times the power available on current destroyers. It also impacts the ship's thermal and sound signature. The IPS has added to weight growth in the ''Zumwalt''-class destroyer as noted by the [[GAO]].<ref name="global_dd-x"/><ref>[http://www.raytheon.com/products/ddg_1000/tech/ips/index.html Raytheon Company: Products & Services: Integrated Power System (IPS)<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><ref name ="d05752r"/>


The decision in September 2006 to fund two ships meant that one could be built by both [[Bath Iron Works]] in Maine and by Northrop Grumman's Ingalls Shipbuilding in Mississippi.<ref name="AP060926"/>
===Stealth===
Despite being 40% larger than an ''[[Arleigh Burke]]''-class destroyer the radar signature is more akin to a fishing boat and sound levels are compared to the [[Los Angeles class submarine|''Los Angeles''-class]] submarine. The [[tumblehome]] hull reduces radar return and the inclusion of composite materials reducing it still further. Water sleeting along the sides, along with passive cool air induction in the mack reduces thermal emissions.<ref name="global_dd-x"/>


On [[13 November]] 2007, Northrop Grumann was awarded a $90m contract modification for materials and production planning.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=131314 | title=U.S. Navy Awards Northrop Grumman $90 Million Long-Lead Material Contract for DDG 1000|publisher=Northrop Grumman Corporation|date=2007-11-13}}</ref> On February 14, 2008, [[Bath Iron Works]] was awarded for the construction of the USS ''Zumwalt'' (DDG-1000), and Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding was awarded for the construction of the DDG-1001, with price of $1.4 billion each.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=35020 |title=Navy Awards Contracts for Zumwalt Class Destroyers|date=2008-14-02|publisher=Navy News Service}}</ref>
===Tumblehome wave piercing hull===
A return to a hull form not seen since before World War I, the ''Zumwalt''-class destroyer reintroduces the tumblehome hull form. In this hull form the hull widens from the deck to the waterline instead of flaring from the waterline up to the deck. This was done to reduce the radar return of the hull. The bow is designed to cut through waves rather than ride over them. This hull form has been the center of arguments given in the Naval Architecture community over stability in high sea states.<ref name="global_dd-x"/><ref>[http://www.raytheon.com/products/ddg_1000/tech/wpth/index.html Raytheon Company: Products & Services: Wave Piercing Tumblehome Hull<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>


As of July 2008, the contruction timetable looked like this :<ref name="GAO-08-804" /><!-- has some useful history of program-->
===Automated fire suppression system===
*October 2008 : DDG-1000 starts construction at Bath Iron Works
Water spray or mist systems are proposed for deployment in the ''Zumwalt''-class destroyer but the electronic spaces continue to provide a challenge to the designers. [[Halon]]/Nitrogen dump systems are preferred but do not work when the space has been compromised by a hull breach. Again this system has been pointed out by the [[GAO]] as being a potential problem yet to be addressed.<ref name="global_dd-x"/><ref>[http://www.raytheon.com/products/ddg_1000/tech/afss/index.html Raytheon Company: Products & Services: Autonomic Fire Supression System (AFSS)<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><ref name ="d05752r"/>
*September 2009 : DDG-1001 starts construction at Ingalls
*April 2013 : DDG-1000 initial delivery
*May 2014 : DDG-1001 delivery
*March 2015 : Initial operating capability


===Boat and Helicopter arrangements===
==Names and hull numbers==
In April 2006, the first of the class was announced and will be named the ''Zumwalt''. The ship will be named to honor the former Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Elmo R. “Bud” Zumwalt Jr.<ref name="GAO-08-804" /> Its hull number will be DDG-1000. In so doing, the Navy will eschew the guided missile destroyer sequence that goes up to DDG-112 (the last of the currently planned [[Arleigh Burke class destroyer|''Arleigh Burke''-class]]), and continue in the previous "gun destroyer" sequence left off with the last of the [[Spruance class destroyer|''Spruance''-class]], [[USS Hayler (DD-997)|DD-997 ''Hayler'']].
Two spots will be available on a large aviation deck while boat handling is to be dealt with in a stern mounted boat hangar with ramp, the boat hangar’s stern location meeting high sea state requirements for boat operations.<ref name="global_dd-x"/>


There is an active [[civilian]] campaign to persuade the [[Secretary of the Navy]] to name one of the class the USS ''[[Robert A. Heinlein]]''. <ref>{{cite web | last=Miller | first = John J | url = http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=YjE5OGQwZDgzODc5OTYwODRkNTIzM2Y5ZWZhNDUwNTE= | title=In a Strange Land | journal=National Review|date=2007-07-09}}</ref>
===Automated replenishment===
AGS rounds, food, and other stores, are all mounted in containers able to be struck below to magazine/storage areas by an automated cargo handling system.<ref name="global_dd-x"/>


===Manning reductions===
==Design elements==
[[Image:DD(X).png|thumb|300px|Planned features of the DDG-1000.]]
Automation of the AGS magazines, Fire suppression, and replenishment operations, are all designed to reduce crew on ''Zumwalt''-class destroyers. One of the major contributors to life cycle costs are staffing requirement on a warship.<ref name="global_dd-x"/>


===Stealth===
==Development history==
Despite being 40% larger than an ''[[Arleigh Burke]]''-class destroyer the radar signature is more akin to a fishing boat and sound levels are compared to the [[Los Angeles class submarine|''Los Angeles''-class]] submarine. The [[tumblehome]] hull reduces radar return and the inclusion of composite materials reducing it still further. Water sleeting along the sides, along with passive cool air induction in the mack reduces thermal emissions.<ref name="global_dd-x"/>
The [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]] opposes the DDG-1000 and has cut some funding, preferring to build another [[Arleigh Burke class destroyer|''Arleigh Burke'' class destroyer]] and the new [[littoral combat ship]]s. The [[United States Senate|Senate]] supports the DDG-1000 and continues to approve more funding.


===Tumblehome wave piercing hull===
It was reported on [[October 17]], [[2005]], that an [[October 5]] Pentagon report recommended "''canceling the DD(X) destroyer being developed by Northrop Grumman Corp.''" <ref>[http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1103567&tw=wn_wire_story]</ref>
A return to a hull form not seen since before World War I, the ''Zumwalt''-class destroyer reintroduces the tumblehome hull form. In this hull form the hull widens from the deck to the waterline instead of flaring from the waterline up to the deck. This was done to reduce the radar return of the hull. The bow is designed to cut through waves rather than ride over them.<ref name="global_dd-x"/><ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/ddg_1000/tech/wpth/index.html | title= Wave Piercing Tumblehome Hull | publisher = Raytheon Company | date=2007-03-22}}</ref> As mentioned above, the stability in high sea states of this hull form has caused debate among naval architects.


===Advanced Gun System (AGS)===
On [[November 23]], 2005, the Defense Acquisition Board approved a plan for simultaneous construction of the first two DDG-1000 ships at Northrop’s Ingalls yard in [[Pascagoula, MS]] and General Dynamics’ [[Bath Iron Works]] in [[Bath, ME]]. However, as of that date, funding had yet to be authorized by Congress.
The Advanced Gun System is a 155&nbsp;mm [[Naval artillery|naval gun]],two of which would be installed in each ship. This system consists of an advanced 155&nbsp;mm gun and the [[Long Range Land-Attack Projectile]].<ref name="BAE AGS"/> This projectile is in fact a rocket with a warhead fired from the AGS gun; the warhead weighs 11 kg / 24 [[pound (mass)|lb]] and has a [[Circular error probable|circular error of probability]] of 50 meters. This weapon system will have a range of {{convert|83nmi|km}} and the fully automated storage system will have room for up to 750 rounds.<ref name="BAE AGS">{{cite web | url=http://www.baesystems.com/ProductsServices/l_and_a_as_advanced_gun_system.html | title= Advanced Gun System (AGS) | publisher = BAe Systems | date=2008}}</ref> The system will be provided with a magazine of 600 rounds or more per weapon and offers a rate of fire of 10 rounds per minute per gun. The barrel is water cooled to prevent over-heating issues. The combined firepower from a pair of turrets gives ''Zumwalt''-class destroyers firepower equivalent to 18 conventional [[M-198]] field guns.<ref name="global_dd-x">{{cite web|url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/dd-x.htm | title=DDG-1000 Zumwalt / DD(X) Multi-Mission Surface Combatant|date=2008-09-01|publisher=GlobalSecurity.org}}</ref>


===Peripheral Vertical Launch System (PVLS)===
In late December 2005, the House and Senate agreed to continue funding the DDG-1000 program; however, only seven of these ships will be built under the 2005 authorization instead of the originally planned 23 to 30.
The Peripheral Vertical Launch System is an attempt to reclaim the prized center space of the hull while increasing the safety of the ship from the loss of the entire missile battery and the loss of the ship in the case of a magazine explosion. The system scatters pods of VLS around the outer shell of the ship having a thin steel outer shell and a thick inner shell. The design of the PVLS would be directing the force of the explosion outward rather than ripping the ship in half. Additionally this design keeps the loss of missile capacity down to just the pod being hit.<ref name="global_dd-x"/><ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/ddg_1000/tech/pvls/index.html| title= Zumwalt Class Destroyer Peripheral Vertical Launch System (PVLS) Advanced VLS | publisher = Raytheon Company | date=2007-03-22}}</ref>


===Boat and Helicopter arrangements===
In April 2006, the first of the class was announced and will be named the ''Zumwalt'' and carry the designator DDG-1000. The ship will be named to honor the former Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Elmo R. “Bud” Zumwalt Jr. In so doing, the Navy will eschew the guided missile destroyer sequence begun with [[USS Gyatt (DDG-1)|DDG-1 ''Gyatt'']] and continue in the previous "gun destroyer" sequence left off with [[USS Hayler (DD-997)|DD-997 ''Hayler'']].
Two spots will be available on a large aviation deck while boat handling is to be dealt with in a stern mounted boat hangar with ramp, the boat hangar’s stern location meeting high sea state requirements for boat operations.<ref name="global_dd-x"/>


===Dual-band radar===
The Associated Press reported on November 13, 2007 that the U.S. Navy had awarded a $90 million contract to Northrop Grumman to prepare construction materials for the DDG-1000 order.{{Fact|date=July 2008}}
The AN/SPY-3 radar will send and receive S-band (high altitude large airspace) and X-band (high altitude near airspace) signals with a common-phase conformal array on the deckhouse.<ref name="IDHA"/> Each band will have its own signal processors, with the returns combined by the display sensor manager.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms04_019237.pdf | title= Dual Band Radar (DBR) Zumwalt Class Destroyer Program | format=PDF | publisher = Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems | date=2006-9-21}}</ref> This system is thought to provide high detection and excellent anti-jamming capabilities.<ref name="global_dd-x"/> But at least one report by Congress' investigative arm, the [[GAO]], raises concerns that it is too much of a technology leap.<ref name ="d05752r">{{citation |title=GAO-05-752R Progress of the DD(X) Destroyer Program| url=http://www.gao.gov/htext/d05752r.html | publisher = U.S. Government Accountability Office | date=2005-06-14}}</ref>


===Sonar===
The Associated Press reported on July 23, 2008 that the Senate had approved funding for a third ship but that the House Armed Services Committee had rejected funding for the third ship.{{Fact|date=July 2008}}
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 the blue water.<ref name="McCullough"/>


===Propulsion===
==Debates and controversy==
The DDX proposed to use a Permanent Magnet Motor (PMM) within the hull. An alternate twin pod arrangement being rejected as the ramifications of pod drives would require too much development and validation cost to the vessel. The PMM is considered to be another technology leap and is the cause of some concern along with the radar system from Congress.<ref name="global_dd-x"/> As part of the design phase, Northrop Grumman had built the world's largest permanent magnet motor, designed and fabricated by [[DRS Technologies]]. This proposal was dropped when the PMM motor failed to demonstrate that it was ready to be installed in time.
===Cost and technology===
Lawmakers and others have questioned whether the ''Zumwalt'' class costs too much and whether it provides the capabilities the U.S. military needs. Navy leaders have responded to the criticism by reducing the planned class from 32 ships to seven, and introducing incremental funding to pay for them. Congress has allotted enough money for just two ships so far, describing them as "technology demonstrators," and has expressed mixed feelings about incremental funding for ships.<ref>[http://armedservices.house.gov/NDAA2007CommiteeReport.pdf Taken from the National Defense Authorization Act of 2007, page 68-70]</ref>


Zumwalt will have [[Converteam| Converteam's]] Advanced Induction Motors (AIM), rather than DRS Technologies' Permanent Magnet-Synchronous Motors (PMM).
===Tumblehome design stability===
In early 2007 a controversy developed around stability issues with the DDG-1000 hull design in heavy seas.<ref name="did200704">[http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2007/04/defense-news-will-ddg1000-destroyers-be-unstable/index.php Defense News: Will DDG-1000 Destroyers Be Unstable?]</ref>
"...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 2005 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"..."<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/dead-aim-or-dead-end-the-usas-ddg1000-zumwalt-class-program-02574/ | title = Dead Aim, Or Dead End? The USA’s DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class Program | journal = Defense Industry Daily|date=2008-09-21}} Needs subscription - can someone find a better reference?</ref>
A Press article notes,
"....Brower explained: "The trouble is that as a ship pitches and heaves at sea, if you have tumblehome instead of flare, you have no righting energy to make the ship come back up. On the DDG 1000, 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."<ref name="did200704"/>


===Naval fire support role===
===Integrated Power System (IPS)===
The Integrated Power System (IPS) is a step both forward and backwards. In some ways similar to the old turbo-electric drive, the addition of PMMs and integration of all electrical power systems gives ten times the power available on current destroyers. It also impacts the ship's thermal and sound signature. The IPS has added to weight growth in the ''Zumwalt''-class destroyer as noted by the [[GAO]].<ref name="global_dd-x"/><ref name ="d05752r"/>
{{main|United States Naval Gunfire Support debate}}
A controversial point of the DD(X) destroyer(s) is their planned naval surface fire support role. The original DD21 and the [[Arsenal ship|Arsenal Ship]] had more serious NFS capabilities, which would meet a Congress-mandated requirement related to the Iowa-class battleships. The requirement was eventually relaxed, the battleships stricken from the registry, and the Navy left with small tonnage ships for NFS or alternative methods such as air support.


===Automated replenishment===
[[Image:DD(X) Advanced Gun System.jpg|thumb|right||Artist's impression of the Advanced Gun System aboard a DD(X) Destroyer]]
AGS rounds, food, and other stores, are all mounted in containers able to be struck below to magazine/storage areas by an automated cargo handling system.<ref name="global_dd-x"/>


===Manning reductions===
The DD21 was to have been designed around an advanced "vertical gun" system, which would only have been compatible with guided projectiles, but the project ran into serious technology/cost problems and was radically scaled back to a more conventional 6.1&nbsp;inch [[Advanced Gun System]] (AGS).
Automation of the AGS magazines, Fire suppression, and replenishment operations, are all designed to reduce crew on ''Zumwalt''-class destroyers. One of the major contributors to life cycle costs are staffing requirement on a warship.<ref name="global_dd-x"/>


===Automated fire suppression system===
The ''Zumwalt''-class will have two 6.1&nbsp;inch (155&nbsp;mm) guns with limited ammunition. While smaller caliber guns (and missiles) have been used for centuries in naval fire support, very large guns have special capabilities beyond that of mid-range calibres. US battleships were re-activated three times after WWII specifically for NFS, and their 16&nbsp;inch gunfire was used in every major engagement of the U. S. from WWII to the Gulf War.
Water spray or mist systems are proposed for deployment in the ''Zumwalt''-class destroyer but the electronic spaces continue to provide a challenge to the designers. [[Halon]]/Nitrogen dump systems are preferred but do not work when the space has been compromised by a hull breach. Again this system has been pointed out by the [[GAO]] as being a potential problem yet to be addressed.<ref name="global_dd-x"/>
<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/ddg_1000/tech/afss/index.html | title= Zumwalt Class Destroyer Autonomic Fire Suppression System (AFSS) | publisher = Raytheon Company | date=2007-03-22}}</ref>


===Computer network===
Up to 2006, the remaining [[Iowa class battleship|''Iowa''-class]] [[battleship]]s were kept on the Naval registry, in part to fill a naval fire support role. The ''Zumwalt''-class is noted to be able to fire a specially designed "guided" artillery shell some 63&nbsp;nautical miles inland.<ref>[http://armedservices.house.gov/NDAA2007CommiteeReport.pdf Taken from the National Defense Authorization Act of 2007, page 194]</ref> However, this shell has a reduced warhead size and uses new technology, so most of the shells carried on the DDG would have vastly shorter range. A sub-calibre sabot round had already been partially developed for a battleship gun; an 11&nbsp;inch sub-calibre saboted long-range round for the 16"/50 Mark 7 was tested in the 1960s<ref name="navweaps">[http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm USA 16"/50 (40.6 cm) Mark 7<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> while another, even longer range one was proposed and evaluated in the late 1980s. The studies for this formed the basis for the original (not current) long range AGS gun in the DD21 (but not DDG-1000).<ref name="navweaps"/>
The Total Ship Computing Environment Infrastructure (TSCEI) is based on GE Fanuc Embedded Systems' PPC7A and PPC7D single-board computers<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.gefanucembedded.com/news-events/1047 | title=GE Fanuc Embedded Systems Selected By Raytheon For Zumwalt Class Destroyer Program|date=2007-07-25|publisher=GE Fanuc Intelligent Platforms}}</ref> running Lynuxworks' Lynx RTOS.<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.lynuxworks.com/corporate/news/2007/ge-fanuc-raytheon.php| title=GE Fanuc Embedded Systems Selected By Raytheon For Zumwalt Class Destroyer Program|date=2007-07-25|publisher=Lynuxworks}}</ref>


==See also==
===Missiles: 80 MK57 VLS Cells===
* [[Future Surface Combatant]] - Equally troubled British program to develop a smaller ship with a similar mission
The original DD21 design, displacing around 16,000 tons, would have accommodated between 117 and 128 VLS cells. However, the final DDG-1000 design was considerably smaller than that of the DD21, resulting in room for only 80 VLS cells.<ref>[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/dd-21-specs.htm globalsecurity.org: DD-21 Specs]</ref>
Given the vessel's size and expected role, the ''Zumwalt'' class destroyers will likely carry many more [[BGM-109 Tomahawk|Tomahawk missiles]] than either the ''Ticonderoga'' or ''Arleigh Burke'' class ships.

=== USN position and political debate ===
{{cquote|"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 2007|<ref name="NDAA 2007">{{cite web |url=http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/15may20061514/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/hr109-452/title2.pdf |title=National Defense Authorization Act of 2007 |accessdate=2007-03-12 |format=pdf |pages=Pages 193-194}}</ref>}}

The official position of the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Navy is that the ''Zumwalt''-class destroyer(s) will be adequate as naval surface gunfire support ships, although there are dissenters.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/06/novak.marines/index.html cnn.com Losing the Battleships]</ref> In March 2006, the ''Iowa'' and ''Wisconsin'' were struck from the [[Naval Vessel Register]]. However, Congress remains "deeply concerned" over the loss of naval surface gunfire support they could provide and noted that "navy efforts to improve upon, much less replace, this capability have been highly problematic."<ref name="ndaa193">[http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS70125 Taken from the National Defense Authorization Act of 2007, page 193]</ref> The U.S. House of Representatives asked that the battleships be kept in a state of readiness should they ever be needed again<ref name="ndaa68">[http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS70125 Taken from the National Defense Authorization Act of 2007, page 68]</ref> and directed the Navy to increase the number of [[Arleigh Burke class destroyer|''Arleigh Burke''-class]] [[destroyer]]s that are currently being modernized.<ref name="ndaa68"/> The modernization includes extending the range of the 5-inch guns on the Flight 1 ships with [[Extended Range Guided Munition|extended range guided munitions (ERGMs)]] that would enable the ships to fire projectiles about forty nautical miles inland;<ref>[http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS70125 Taken from the National Defense Authorization Act of 2007, pages 67-68]</ref><ref name="ndaa193"/><ref>[http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-45.htm Federation of American Scientists report on the MK 45 5-inch gun and ammunition payload for the U.S. ''Arleigh Burke''-class destroyers]</ref> However the ERGM has now been canceled, leaving the nature of future DDG NGFS up in the air.<ref>[http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/03/defense_ergm_032408/ Navy ends ERGM funding - Navy Times]</ref>



====Navy reverses position====
On July 31, 2008, U.S. Navy acquisition officials told Congress that the service needed to purchase more [[Arleigh Burke class destroyer|Arleigh Burke-class destroyer]]s, and no longer needs the next-generation DDG 1000 class. "Now, we're turning on a dime," mused [[U.S. Representative]] [[Joe Sestak]], D-Pa., a former Navy vice admiral, after hearing their testimony.<ref name="noneed">[http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3654864&c=AME&s=TOP Navy: No Need to Add DDG 1000s After All], [http://www.defensenews.com DefenseNews], 1 Aug 2008, Retrieved 2008-08-05</ref>

Vice Adm. 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, cited the planned ship's inability to fire advanced versions of the Standard Missile, contradicting previous claims. They also mentioned a new "classified threat" for which the Burkes are better able to handle but would not go into specifics, citing security concerns. The Navy said the world threat picture had changed in such a way that it now makes more sense to build at least eight more Burkes, rather than DDG 1000s.<ref name="noneed"/>

Many Congressional subcommittee members appeared incredulous that the Navy could have conducted 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 surface ship program known as [[DD 21]], then [[DD(X)]] and finally, [[DDG 1000]]. That figure does not include the money spent for the two hulls (DDG-1000 and DDG-1001).<ref name="noneed"/>

===Lack of Air Defense Capability===
Recent testimony from Admiral McCullough has indicated that the DDG 1000 class would be incapable of performing air defense in any greater role than point defense, with an inability to launch Standard Missiles. Since the Standard Missile is the Navy's primary surface-launched air defense weapon, this leaves a large gap in the new destroyer's capabilities. Some have questioned this new information since lack of air defense capabilities and guided missile launching capability in what is supposed to be a guided missile destroyer is hard to understand. <ref>[http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2008/08/a-12-and-arsenal-ship.html Information Dissemination: The A-12 and The Arsenal Ship<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>

Separately from the above, there is an active [[civilian]] campaign to persuade the [[Secretary of the Navy]] to name DDG-1001 the USS ''[[Robert A. Heinlein]]''. [http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=YjE5OGQwZDgzODc5OTYwODRkNTIzM2Y5ZWZhNDUwNTE=]


==References==
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}
<!-- Links could do with some trimming, no need to provide links that are already in the references -->

==External links==
==External links==
;General Information about DD(X) Class Destroyers
;General Information about DD(X) Class Destroyers

Revision as of 00:44, 11 October 2008

Template:Future ship

Artist rendering of the Zumwalt class destroyer
Class overview
NameZumwalt
Builderslist error: <br /> list (help)
Northrop Grumman
General Dynamics
Operators United States Navy
Preceded byArleigh Burke class destroyer
Succeeded byN/A (latest destroyer class authorized)
BuiltOctober 2008 (forecast) [1]
In serviceApril 2013 (forecast)[1]
In commissionMarch 2015 (forecast)[1]
PlannedUSS Zumwalt, 1-2 more planned
Cancelled4-5
General characteristics
Displacement14,564 tons[2]
Length600 feet (182.9 m)
Beam79.1 feet (24.1 m)
Draft27.6 feet (8.4 m)
Propulsion2 Rolls-Royce Marine Trent-30 gas turbines and emergency diesel generators, 78 MW
Speed30.3 kn (56 km/h)
Complement140
Sensors and
processing systems		list error: <br /> list (help)
AN/SPY-3 Multi-Function Radar (MFR) (X-band, scanned array)
Volume Search Radar (VSR) (S-band, scanned array)
Armamentlist error: <br /> list (help)
20 × MK 57 VLS modules, comprising a total of 80 missiles
Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM)
Tactical Tomahawk Block IV
Standard Missile 2 Block III (SM-2MR)
Vertical Launch Anti-Submarine Rocket (ASROC)
2 × 155 mm Advanced Gun System
920 × 155 mm total; 600 in automated store + Auxiliary store room with up to 320 rounds (non-automatic) as of April 2005
70-100 LRLAP rounds planned as of 2005 of total
2 × Mk 110 57 mm gun (CIWS)
Aircraft carriedlist error: <br /> list (help)
2 SH-60 LAMPS helicopters or 1 MH-60R helicopter
3 MQ-8 Fire Scout VTUAV

The Zumwalt-class destroyer (DDG-1000, previously known as the DD(X)) is a planned class of United States Navy destroyers, designed as multi-mission ship with a focus on land attack. The class is a scaled-back project that emerged after funding cuts to the larger DD-21 vessel program. The Zumwalt-class destroyers are multi-role and designed for surface warfare, anti-aircraft, and naval fire support. They take the place of the battleships in filling the former congressional mandate for naval fire support, though the requirement was reduced to allow them to fill this role.

The DDG-1000 is planned to feature the following: a low radar profile; an integrated power system, which can send electricity to the electric drive motors or weapons, which may someday include railguns; a total ship computing environment infrastructure (TSCE-I), serving as the ship's primary LAN and as the hardware-independent platform for all of the ship's software ensembles; automated fire-fighting systems and automated piping rupture isolation. The destroyer is being designed to require a smaller crew and be less expensive to operate than comparable warships. It will have a wave-piercing "tumblehome" hull form whose sides slope inward above the waterline. This will reduce the radar cross-section, returning much less energy than a more hard-angled hull form.

The lead ship is named Zumwalt for Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, and carries the hull number DDG-1000. Originally 32 ships were planned for the class, this was progressively cut down to 2,[3] it now looks like three will be built. The Navy expects each ship to cost nearly $3.3bn.[3]

Controversy

Lawmakers and others have questioned whether the Zumwalt class costs too much and whether it provides the capabilities the U.S. military needs. In 2005 the Congressional Budget Office estimated the life-cycle cost of a DD(X) at $3.8-4.0bn in 2007 dollars, $1.1bn more than the Navy's estimate.[4]

Specific issues have been raised about the design :

Ballistic missile/air defence capability

On 31 July 2008 Vice Adm. 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 1000 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."[5] Dan Smith, president of Raytheon’s Integrated Defense Systems division, has countered that the radar and combat system are essentially the same as other SM-2-capable 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".[6] The lack of anti-ballistic missile capability may represent a lack of compatability with SM-3. In view of new intelligence about China's development of targetable anti-ship ballistic missiles, possibly a homing version of the DF-21,[7] this could be a fatal flaw.

Missile capacity

The original DD21 design, displacing around 16,000 tons, would have accommodated between 117 and 128 VLS cells.[8] However, the final DDG-1000 design was considerably smaller than that of the DD21, resulting in room for only 80 VLS cells.[2] Given the vessel's expected role, the Zumwalt class destroyers will likely carry many more Tomahawk missiles than either the Ticonderoga or Arleigh Burke class ships.

Main article: United States Naval Gunfire Support debate

"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."

A controversial point of the DD(X) destroyer(s) is their planned naval surface fire support role. The original DD21 and the Arsenal Ship had more serious NFS capabilities, which would meet a Congress-mandated requirement related to the Iowa-class battleships. The requirement was eventually relaxed, the battleships stricken from the registry, and the Navy left with small tonnage ships for NFS or alternative methods such as air support. The official position of the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Navy is that the Zumwalt-class destroyer(s) will be adequate as naval surface gunfire support ships, although there are dissenters.[9]

Artist's impression of the Advanced Gun System aboard a DD(X) Destroyer

While smaller caliber guns (and missiles) have been used for centuries in naval fire support, very large guns have special capabilities beyond that of mid-range calibres. US battleships were re-activated three times after WWII specifically for NFS, and their 16 inch gunfire was used in every major engagement of the U. S. from WWII to the Gulf War. A sub-calibre sabot round had already been partially developed for a battleship gun; Gerald Bull and Naval Ordnance Station Indian Head tested an 11 inch sub-calibre saboted long-range round[10] in a stretched 16"/45 Mark 6 gun in 1967.[11] The Advanced Gun Weapon System Technology Program (AGWSTP) evaluated a similar projectile with longer range in the 1980s.[10] After the battleships were decommissioned in 1992, the AGWSTP became a 5" gun with an intended range of 180 kilometres (110 mi), which then led to the Vertical Gun for Advanced Ships (VGAS). The original DD-21 was designed around this "vertical gun", but the project ran into serious technology/cost problems and was radically scaled back to a more conventional 6.1 inch Advanced Gun System (AGS). One advantage of this move was that the gun was no longer restricted to guided munitions.

The Zumwalt-class will have two of these 6.1 inch (155 mm) guns with limited ammunition. The ships can fire a specially designed "guided" artillery shell some 63 nautical miles (117 km) inland.[12] However, this shell has a reduced warhead size and uses new technology, so most of the shells carried on the DDG would have vastly shorter range.

In March 2006, the Iowa and Wisconsin were struck from the Naval Vessel Register, having been kept on in part to fill a naval fire support role. However, Congress was "deeply concerned" over the loss of naval surface gunfire support they could provide and noted that "navy efforts to improve upon, much less replace, this capability have been highly problematic."[13] The U.S. House of Representatives asked that the battleships be kept in a state of readiness should they ever be needed again[14] and directed the Navy to increase the number of Arleigh Burke-class destroyers that are currently being modernized.[14] The modernization includes extending the range of the 5-inch guns on the Flight 1 ships with extended range guided munitions (ERGMs) that would enable the ships to fire projectiles about forty nautical miles inland;[15] [16] However the ERGM was canceled after it failed firing tests in February 2008.[17] The Navy is studying future options for naval fire support; Alliant Techsystems’ ballistic trajectory extended range munition may be one possibility.[17]

Structural problems

The Zumwalt has an unusually large deckhouse as all the major sensors are buried in its structure.[18] It has been claimed that Northrop Grumman has had problems sealing the composite construction panels of this area, but Northrop Grumman has denied this.[19]

Tumblehome design stability

The stability of the DDG-1000 hull design in heavy seas has been a matter of controversy. Naval architect Ken Brower said in April 2007 that "as a ship pitches and heaves at sea, if you have tumblehome instead of flare, you have no righting energy to make the ship come back up. On the DDG 1000, 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."[20] The fact that the CG(X) cruiser will probably not now have a tumblehome hull suggests that there may be problems with the Zumwalt's seakeeping.[7]

History

Funding

Many of the ship's features were originally developed under the DD21 program ("21st Century Destroyer"). In 2001, Congress cut the DD-21 program by half as part of the SC21 program; to save it, the acquisition program was renamed as DD(X) and heavily reworked. The House of Representatives opposes the DDG-1000 and has cut some funding, preferring to build more Arleigh Burke class destroyers and the new littoral combat ships. The Senate supports the DDG-1000 and continues to approve more funding.[citation needed]

Originally, the Navy had hoped to build 32 of these destroyers. That number was later reduced to 24, then to 7, due to the high cost of new and experimental technologies to be incorporated in the destroyer.[3] On November 23, 2005, the Defense Acquisition Board approved a plan for simultaneous construction of the first two DDG-1000 ships at Northrop’s Ingalls yard in Pascagoula, MS and General Dynamics’ Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME. However, as of that date, funding had yet to be authorized by Congress.

In late December 2005, the House and Senate agreed to continue funding the DDG-1000 program. The U.S. House of Representatives allotted the Navy only enough money to begin construction on one DDG-1000 destroyer as a "technology demonstrator." The initial funding allocation for the DDG-1000 destroyer was included in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2007.[3] However, this was increased to two ships by the 2007 appropriations bill[21] approved in September 2006, which allotted US$2,568m to the DDG-1000 program.[22]

On July 31 2008, U.S. Navy acquisition officials told Congress that the service needed to purchase more Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, and no longer needs the next-generation DDG 1000 class,[23] Only the two approved destroyers would be built. The Navy said the world threat picture had changed in such a way that it now makes more sense to build at least eight more Burkes, rather than DDG 1000s.[23] Many Congressional subcommittee members appeared incredulous that the Navy could have conducted 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 surface ship program known as DD 21, then DD(X) and finally, DDG 1000. That figure does not include the money spent for the two hulls (DDG-1000 and DDG-1001).[23] Subsequently chief of naval operations Gary Roughead has cited the need to provide area air defence and specific new threats such as ballistic missiles and the possession of anti-ship missiles by groups such as Hezbollah.[24] The mooted structural problems have not been discussed in public. Navy Secretary Donald 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 1000 or a DDG 51".[6]

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. [25] House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha said on 23 September 2008 that he had agreed to partial funding of the third DDG-1000 in the 2009 Defense authorization bill.[26]

Construction

In late 2005, the program entered the detail design and integration phase, for which Raytheon is the Mission Systems Integrator. Both Northrop Grumman Ship Systems and General Dynamics Bath Iron Works share dual-lead for the hull, mechanical, and electrical detail design. BAE Systems Inc. has 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. are involved to some extent in this project, which is 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, Tumblehome Hull Form.

The decision in September 2006 to fund two ships meant that one could be built by both Bath Iron Works in Maine and by Northrop Grumman's Ingalls Shipbuilding in Mississippi.[21]

On 13 November 2007, Northrop Grumann was awarded a $90m contract modification for materials and production planning.[27] On February 14, 2008, Bath Iron Works was awarded for the construction of the USS Zumwalt (DDG-1000), and Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding was awarded for the construction of the DDG-1001, with price of $1.4 billion each.[28]

As of July 2008, the contruction timetable looked like this :[1]

  • October 2008 : DDG-1000 starts construction at Bath Iron Works
  • September 2009 : DDG-1001 starts construction at Ingalls
  • April 2013 : DDG-1000 initial delivery
  • May 2014 : DDG-1001 delivery
  • March 2015 : Initial operating capability

Names and hull numbers

In April 2006, the first of the class was announced and will be named the Zumwalt. The ship will be named to honor the former Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Elmo R. “Bud” Zumwalt Jr.[1] Its hull number will be DDG-1000. In so doing, the Navy will eschew the guided missile destroyer sequence that goes up to DDG-112 (the last of the currently planned Arleigh Burke-class), and continue in the previous "gun destroyer" sequence left off with the last of the Spruance-class, DD-997 Hayler.

There is an active civilian campaign to persuade the Secretary of the Navy to name one of the class the USS Robert A. Heinlein. [29]

Design elements

Planned features of the DDG-1000.

Stealth

Despite being 40% larger than an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer the radar signature is more akin to a fishing boat and sound levels are compared to the Los Angeles-class submarine. The tumblehome hull reduces radar return and the inclusion of composite materials reducing it still further. Water sleeting along the sides, along with passive cool air induction in the mack reduces thermal emissions.[30]

Tumblehome wave piercing hull

A return to a hull form not seen since before World War I, the Zumwalt-class destroyer reintroduces the tumblehome hull form. In this hull form the hull widens from the deck to the waterline instead of flaring from the waterline up to the deck. This was done to reduce the radar return of the hull. The bow is designed to cut through waves rather than ride over them.[30][31] As mentioned above, the stability in high sea states of this hull form has caused debate among naval architects.

Advanced Gun System (AGS)

The Advanced Gun System is a 155 mm naval gun,two of which would be installed in each ship. This system consists of an advanced 155 mm gun and the Long Range Land-Attack Projectile.[32] This projectile is in fact a rocket with a warhead fired from the AGS gun; the warhead weighs 11 kg / 24 lb and has a circular error of probability of 50 meters. This weapon system will have a range of [convert: invalid number] and the fully automated storage system will have room for up to 750 rounds.[32] The system will be provided with a magazine of 600 rounds or more per weapon and offers a rate of fire of 10 rounds per minute per gun. The barrel is water cooled to prevent over-heating issues. The combined firepower from a pair of turrets gives Zumwalt-class destroyers firepower equivalent to 18 conventional M-198 field guns.[30]

Peripheral Vertical Launch System (PVLS)

The Peripheral Vertical Launch System is an attempt to reclaim the prized center space of the hull while increasing the safety of the ship from the loss of the entire missile battery and the loss of the ship in the case of a magazine explosion. The system scatters pods of VLS around the outer shell of the ship having a thin steel outer shell and a thick inner shell. The design of the PVLS would be directing the force of the explosion outward rather than ripping the ship in half. Additionally this design keeps the loss of missile capacity down to just the pod being hit.[30][33]

Boat and Helicopter arrangements

Two spots will be available on a large aviation deck while boat handling is to be dealt with in a stern mounted boat hangar with ramp, the boat hangar’s stern location meeting high sea state requirements for boat operations.[30]

Dual-band radar

The AN/SPY-3 radar will send and receive S-band (high altitude large airspace) and X-band (high altitude near airspace) signals with a common-phase conformal array on the deckhouse.[18] Each band will have its own signal processors, with the returns combined by the display sensor manager.[34] This system is thought to provide high detection and excellent anti-jamming capabilities.[30] But at least one report by Congress' investigative arm, the GAO, raises concerns that it is too much of a technology leap.[35]

Sonar

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 the blue water.[5]

Propulsion

The DDX proposed to use a Permanent Magnet Motor (PMM) within the hull. An alternate twin pod arrangement being rejected as the ramifications of pod drives would require too much development and validation cost to the vessel. The PMM is considered to be another technology leap and is the cause of some concern along with the radar system from Congress.[30] As part of the design phase, Northrop Grumman had built the world's largest permanent magnet motor, designed and fabricated by DRS Technologies. This proposal was dropped when the PMM motor failed to demonstrate that it was ready to be installed in time.

Zumwalt will have 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 2005 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"..."[36]

Integrated Power System (IPS)

The Integrated Power System (IPS) is a step both forward and backwards. In some ways similar to the old turbo-electric drive, the addition of PMMs and integration of all electrical power systems gives ten times the power available on current destroyers. It also impacts the ship's thermal and sound signature. The IPS has added to weight growth in the Zumwalt-class destroyer as noted by the GAO.[30][35]

Automated replenishment

AGS rounds, food, and other stores, are all mounted in containers able to be struck below to magazine/storage areas by an automated cargo handling system.[30]

Manning reductions

Automation of the AGS magazines, Fire suppression, and replenishment operations, are all designed to reduce crew on Zumwalt-class destroyers. One of the major contributors to life cycle costs are staffing requirement on a warship.[30]

Automated fire suppression system

Water spray or mist systems are proposed for deployment in the Zumwalt-class destroyer but the electronic spaces continue to provide a challenge to the designers. Halon/Nitrogen dump systems are preferred but do not work when the space has been compromised by a hull breach. Again this system has been pointed out by the GAO as being a potential problem yet to be addressed.[30] [37]

Computer network

The Total Ship Computing Environment Infrastructure (TSCEI) is based on GE Fanuc Embedded Systems' PPC7A and PPC7D single-board computers[38] running Lynuxworks' Lynx RTOS.[39]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c d e "Defense Acquisitions: Cost to Deliver Zumwalt-Class Destroyers Likely to Exceed Budget". Government Accountability Office. 2008-070-31. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) GAO-08-804
  2. ^ a b "DDG 1000 Flight I Design". Northrop Grumman Ship Systems. 2007.
  3. ^ a b c d NDAA 2007 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, (109-452) US Government Printing Office, 2006-05-05, pp. 69–70 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Cite error: The named reference "ndaa69-70" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  4. ^ Gilmore, J. Michael (2005-07-19), Statement on The Navy’s DD(X) Destroyer Program before the Subcommittee on Projection Forces, US House of Representatives {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. ^ a b McCullough, Vice Adm. Barry; Stiller, Allison (2008-07-31), Statement on Surface Combatant Requirements and Acquisition Strategy (PDF), House Armed Services Committee {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  6. ^ a b Cavas, Christopher P (2008-09-16), "Troubled DDG 1000 faces shipyard problems", Navy Times
  7. ^ a b Cavas, Christopher P (2008-08-04), "Missile Threat Helped Drive DDG Cut", DefenseNews
  8. ^ "DD-21 Zumwalt". globalsecurity.org. 2005-04-27.
  9. ^ Novak, Robert (2005-12-06), Losing the Battleships, CNN {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  10. ^ a b Van Dam, L. Bruce (1999-06-04), Does the Past Have a Place in the Future? The Utility of Battleships into the Twenty-First Century (PDF), Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: US Army Command and General Staff College, citing a letter from Major Tracy Ralphs to Senator John Warner on 1999-02-25
  11. ^ "United States of America 16"/50 (40.6 cm) Mark 7". Tony DiGiulian, navweaps.com. 2008-08-09.
  12. ^ NDAA 2007 p194
  13. ^ NDAA 2007 p193
  14. ^ a b NDAA 2007 p68
  15. ^ NDAA 2007 pp67-8,193
  16. ^ "MK 45 5-inch / 54-caliber (lightweight) gun". Federation of American Scientists. 1999-11-26.
  17. ^ a b Matthews (2008-03-25), "Navy ends ERGM funding", Navy Times {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Text "William" ignored (help)
  18. ^ a b "Zumwalt Class Destroyer Integrated Composite Deckhouse & Apertures (IDHA)". Raytheon Company. 2007-03-22.
  19. ^ Cavas, Christopher P (2008-09-12). "Will DDG 1000 Produce Any Ships at All?". DefenseNews.
  20. ^ Will DDG-1000 Destroyers Be Unstable?, Defense Industry Daily, 2007-04-12 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help), quoting Cavas, Christopher P (2007-04-02), "Is New U.S. Destroyer Unstable?", DefenseNews
  21. ^ a b Taylor, Andrew (2006-09-26), House OKs $70B for Iraq, Afghanistan, Associated Press {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  22. ^ 109th Congress :Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2007, (109-289) US Government Printing Office, 2006-09-29
  23. ^ a b c "Navy: No Need to Add DDG 1000s After All". DefenseNews. 2008-08-01. Retrieved 2008-08-05.
  24. ^ Cavas, Christopher P (2008-09-26), "Roughead pushes for littoral combat ship", Navy Times
  25. ^ Ewing, Philip (2008-08-19), Lawmaker: Third DDG 1000 Far From Done Deal, Defense News
  26. ^ Scully, Megan, "Negotiators agree to buy more F-22s, Zumwalt destroyers", Congress Daily {{citation}}: Text "date-2008-09-24" ignored (help)
  27. ^ "U.S. Navy Awards Northrop Grumman $90 Million Long-Lead Material Contract for DDG 1000". Northrop Grumman Corporation. 2007-11-13.
  28. ^ "Navy Awards Contracts for Zumwalt Class Destroyers". Navy News Service. 2008-14-02. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  29. ^ Miller, John J (2007-07-09). "In a Strange Land". National Review.
  30. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k "DDG-1000 Zumwalt / DD(X) Multi-Mission Surface Combatant". GlobalSecurity.org. 2008-09-01.
  31. ^ "Wave Piercing Tumblehome Hull". Raytheon Company. 2007-03-22.
  32. ^ a b "Advanced Gun System (AGS)". BAe Systems. 2008.
  33. ^ "Zumwalt Class Destroyer Peripheral Vertical Launch System (PVLS) Advanced VLS". Raytheon Company. 2007-03-22.
  34. ^ "Dual Band Radar (DBR) Zumwalt Class Destroyer Program" (PDF). Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems. 2006-9-21. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  35. ^ a b GAO-05-752R Progress of the DD(X) Destroyer Program, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2005-06-14
  36. ^ "Dead Aim, Or Dead End? The USA's DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class Program". Defense Industry Daily. 2008-09-21. Needs subscription - can someone find a better reference?
  37. ^ "Zumwalt Class Destroyer Autonomic Fire Suppression System (AFSS)". Raytheon Company. 2007-03-22.
  38. ^ "GE Fanuc Embedded Systems Selected By Raytheon For Zumwalt Class Destroyer Program". GE Fanuc Intelligent Platforms. 2007-07-25.
  39. ^ "GE Fanuc Embedded Systems Selected By Raytheon For Zumwalt Class Destroyer Program". Lynuxworks. 2007-07-25.
General Information about DD(X) Class Destroyers
companies involved in the DD(X) Destroyer program
Government reports regarding the DD(X) Destroyer program
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zumwalt-class_destroyer&oldid=244482054"