 |
| |
|
|
Lonestar
|
 |
AECCP Dark Lord of the Sith
Aug 2000
time: 00:30
|
|
...or "The DD(x) program", details of which were finally layed out a few weeks ago. The next surface warship class (since they're 5,000 tons heavier than Aegis Crusiers, it's safe to Destroyer is a misnomer)
quote:
Issue Date: September 01, 2003
Big, stealthy and oh so accommodating, DD(X) surges ahead
By David Brown
Times staff writer
Until recently, it has existed in the public realm only as a far-out-looking, computer-generated ironclad. Now, the Navy has added some facts and figures to the DD(X) program that show just how large and powerful the new destroyer is planned to be.
During an Aug. 12 briefing to reporters, Rear Adm. Charlie Hamilton, the Navy’s program executive officer for ships, laid out the dimensions and capabilities planned for the ship.
Here’s a look at DD(X), by the numbers:
•Dimensions and shape. The ship is 600 feet in length along the ship’s waterline and is 79 feet wide, making it more than 100 feet longer and 20 feet wider than the latest Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. At 14,000 tons displacement, the ship displaces nearly 5,000 tons more than the Arleigh Burkes. DD(X) is projected to run at 30 knots, similar to the Burkes.
The destroyer program, originally called DD 21, was canceled in 2001 and replaced by DD(X). The new program is meant to represent a family of ships, to include a destroyer, cruiser and small littoral ship, and focus on “spiral development,” in which new technologies are added to succeeding flights of ships as they are developed.
A similar concept was envisioned for DD 21, which was part of a “Surface Combatant 21” family of ships.
An industry official familiar with DD 21’s original specifications, which still are classified, said DD 21 was to displace “in excess of” 15,000 tons of water, making it larger than the DD(X) design, although not by much.
Defense officials, as part of the justification for canceling DD 21 and replacing it with DD(X), claimed DD 21 was too large.
The ship boasts radical changes in several areas:
•Quality-of-life improvements. DD(X)’s smaller size won’t reduce the quality-of-life goals that the original program officials framed for DD 21, said Jon Walman, a spokesman for the program.
More than three years ago, Navy officials forecast a DD 21 crew of 95 sailors. That crew range since has grown to 125 to 175, still a significant change from the current 300-sailor crew the Burke-class destroyers require. Walman said DD(X) retains the goal of berthing sailors in four-person staterooms, a giant leap ahead of the habitability standards aboard the Burkes, where 80 to 90 sailors share berthing areas.
•Stealth configuration. The ship sports a wave-piercing “tumblehome” design, with almost an upside-down version of the traditional ship’s bow, and an enormous block superstructure, within which sensors, antennas and other projections are enclosed. Hamilton said the design is meant to cut down the radar signature, making the ship harder to find.
“Not only does it take longer for your enemy to find you,” he said, “but the longer it takes for him to generate a fire-control solution, the more he is in your weapons-engagement envelope for your ability to take him out.”
•Propulsion. Hamilton said one aspect of the ship, its integrated propulsion system and electric drive, should “leap off” the chart among those interested in ship design.
“In the days of my early career, engineers generated propulsion power with one very specific set of propulsion main prime movers,” he said. “They generated electricity through a completely different set of electrical generators. So you couldn’t share it.”
Integrated propulsion brings those two systems together, he said. Electric drive opens the door to powerful rail guns that fire projectiles using electromagnetic energy rather than gunpowder, and directed-energy weapons.
“That can take us to systems that can find itty-bitty targets in the exoatmosphere a lot more efficiently than we can now,” Hamilton said. “That’s why this power thing is so important to us.”
In another departure from gas turbine-powered ships, DD(X) will be powered by Rolls-Royce MT30 marine gas turbine engines, rather than today’s tried-and-true General Electric LM2500s.
•Weapons, aircraft. The ship will have two 155mm advanced gun systems with 600 rounds each, what Hamilton called a “100-mile gun.”
“The guns that we have on ships right this minute, including [the Spruance-class destroyer O’Brien] that I served on in command, [were] 18,000 yards on a good day, downhill, with a following wind,” he said. “So this is an order of magnitude in gunfire and also precision.”
The ship will carry 80 Advanced Vertical Launch System tubes, two 40mm close-in machine guns and torpedoes. The VLS cells are arranged along the deck edge for much of the ship’s length.
The ship is to be capable of carrying one MH-60R helicopter and three vertical take-off unmanned aerial vehicles.
Despite the program’s restructuring in 2001, the two industry teams, led by General Dynamics’ Blue Team and Northrop Grumman’s Gold Team, continued to compete for the design contract. On April 29, 2002, the Navy awarded a $2.9 billion contract to the Gold Team to lead the program’s design.
Northrop Grumman also is converting the decommissioned Spruance-class destroyer Arthur W. Radford to test DD(X) technologies, including the integrated power system and superstructure.
In 2005, the Navy will choose a lead shipbuilder between the two teams. The first DD(X) is set to be procured in 2005.
|
http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?...PER-2144307.php
Yoink. I gotta pre-com on one of those before I get out.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lonestar
Building what? Aqueducts? |
digging ditches then filling them back in.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
We are already way ahead in naval technology anyway. The money is better spent on space exploration, fusion power research, or even a high speed train between SF and LA.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
If we don't keep developing new stuff, we won't STAY ahead in naval technology. |
We will be ahead at least for several decades. Meanwhile, we can invest our money elsewhere. The new destroyer is cool, but not economical.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
A train between SF and LA? So you've got Rice-a-roni and smog, together at last. What's so great about that? I'd rather have the warship. Or at least the rail guns. I want a rail gun. Any weapon that could punch a hole through the entire Washington Monument is cool with me. Incidentally, would rail guns have recoil, and how much relative to a conventional firearm? I don't know much about the physics of them; on one hand, it's highly focused and controlled energy, but on the other, there's still that law about every action having an equal and opposite reaction. The power requirements alone would make it impractical as a handheld weapon, but I'm still curious, if anyone here knows. |
I always loved riding trains. I hate sitting in congestions and working through traffic after a stressful day. In the NE, trains are plenty. But here in CA, they are too rare to be an useful alternative to cars.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-08-2003 21:48
Attachment: 
|
