Fleet Forward: Charting Tomorrow’s Navy –  Episode 3: Technological Advancements and Design Considerations in Modern Shipbuilding

Introduction

Hello and welcome to Fleet Forward, the podcast series that explores the future of the U.S. Navy and its role in the world.  

In this episode, we are going to talk about the technological advancements and design considerations in modern shipbuilding, and how they affect the Navy’s ability to maintain a credible and capable fleet in the face of growing threats and challenges. 

In the previous episodes, we introduced the series and explained why we decided to create it and why it matters. We also discussed the format and the content of the series, and how we hope to provide you with insightful and informative analysis and commentary on the issues and trends that shape the Navy’s present and future. In the second episode, we explored the budgetary challenge of naval shipbuilding, and how it affects the Navy’s shipbuilding plan and force structure goal.

In this episode, we will delve into the technological aspects of naval shipbuilding, and how they influence the design and performance of the Navy’s ships. We will focus on one of the most critical and expensive shipbuilding programs in the Navy’s history, the DDG(X), the Navy’s next-generation guided-missile destroyer that is expected to provide the backbone of the surface fleet and deliver new capabilities such as hypersonic missiles, lasers, and electromagnetic railguns.

The DDG(X) is one of the most critical and expensive shipbuilding programs in the Navy’s history, and it has significant implications for the Navy’s strategy, tactics, and budget. The main question we want to explore today is: What is the operational concept and mission of the DDG(X), and how will it shape the future of the U.S. Navy?

The trade-offs and opportunities involved in designing and building the Navy’s ships are the choices and consequences that the Navy has to face and accept when it decides how to allocate its resources, prioritize its requirements, and balance its needs and wants for its ships. 

The trade-offs and opportunities can affect the cost, schedule, performance, and risk of the shipbuilding programs, and ultimately, the capability and readiness of the fleet.

Some examples of the trade-offs and opportunities involved in designing and building the Navy’s ships are:

Quantity vs. Quality: The Navy has to decide how many ships it needs and can afford, and how capable and advanced those ships should be. The Navy faces a trade-off between quantity and quality, as it has to balance the need for more ships with the need for more advanced and survivable ships that can operate in contested environments. The Navy also faces an opportunity to leverage new technologies and designs that can increase the quantity and quality of its ships, such as modular and scalable architectures, unmanned and autonomous systems, and additive manufacturing.

Risk vs. Reward: The Navy has to decide how much risk it is willing and able to take and manage, and how much reward it expects and seeks to achieve, when it develops and implements new technologies and capabilities for its ships. The Navy faces a trade-off between risk and reward, as it has to balance the need for innovation and experimentation with the need for reliability and certainty. The Navy also faces an opportunity to mitigate and overcome the risks and challenges associated with new technologies and capabilities, such as technical complexity, integration issues, and operational testing and evaluation.

Current vs. Future: The Navy has to decide how to address its current and future operational requirements and expectations, and how to adapt to the changing global security environment and the evolving threats and challenges from potential adversaries. The Navy faces a trade-off between current and future, as it has to balance the need for maintaining and modernizing its existing ships with the need for developing and acquiring new ships. The Navy also faces an opportunity to anticipate and prepare for the future, and to shape and influence the future, by incorporating new technologies and capabilities that can enhance its strategic and tactical advantages and options.

These are some of the trade-offs and opportunities involved in designing and building the Navy’s ships, and they are not mutually exclusive or exhaustive. The Navy has to consider and weigh them carefully and holistically, and make informed and rational decisions that can best serve its interests and values. The DDG(X) program is a case in point, as it reflects and illustrates some of the trade-offs and opportunities that the Navy faces and embraces in designing and building its next-generation guided-missile destroyer.

The DDG(X) program is the Navy’s effort to design and build a new class of large surface combatants (LSCs) that will replace the aging CG-47 Ticonderoga-class cruisers and a significant portion of the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. The LSCs are the Navy’s most capable and versatile surface ships, as they can perform a wide range of missions, such as air and missile defense, anti-surface warfare, anti-submarine warfare, strike warfare, and ballistic missile defense.

The Navy’s previous force structure assessment, which was released in 2016, called for a fleet of 355 ships, including 104 LSCs, by 2030. However, the Navy’s previous shipbuilding plan, which was released in 2020, fell short of this goal, as it projected a fleet of 355 ships, including 88 LSCs, by 2034. Moreover, the shipbuilding plan was underfunded and unrealistic, as it did not account for the rising costs and delays of shipbuilding programs, the impact of inflation and maintenance, and the trade-offs between quantity and quality. On October 6, 2020, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper presented some details regarding a new Navy force-level goal, called Battle Force 2045, for achieving a fleet of more than 500 manned and unmanned ships by 2045, including 355 manned ships prior to 2035. This new force-level goal is based on an internal Office of the Secretary of Defense assessment that calls for the Navy to cut two aircraft carriers from its fleet, freeze the large surface combatant fleet of destroyers and cruisers around current levels and add dozens of unmanned or lightly manned ships to the inventory. The new force-level goal also reflects and illustrates some of the trade-offs and opportunities that the Navy faces and embraces in designing and building its next-generation ships, such as the DDG(X) destroyer.

The DDG(X) program is one of the most critical and expensive shipbuilding programs in the Navy’s history, as it is expected to provide the backbone of the surface fleet and deliver new capabilities that will enhance the Navy’s ability to operate in contested environments. The DDG(X) will be larger, more powerful, and more survivable than the DDG-51, and will be able to carry and launch hypersonic missiles, lasers, and electromagnetic railguns. The DDG(X) will also have improved seakeeping, Arctic operations, survivability, and lethality, and will be able to accommodate future technologies and missions.

The DDG(X) program is still in the early stages of development and subject to change, but the Navy estimates that each DDG(X) could cost up to $2.6 billion, while the Congressional Budget Office projects a higher cost of $3.4 billion. The Navy plans to start construction of the first DDG(X) in 2028 and deliver it in 2034, but this timeline could be affected by budget constraints, industrial capacity, and competing priorities.

Technological Advancements in the DDG(X)

The DDG(X) stands as a testament to naval modernization, according to its proponents. They point to its cutting-edge features like hypersonic missiles, advanced laser systems, and electromagnetic railguns, emphasizing how these technologies significantly enhance the Navy’s operational capabilities. However, it’s crucial to note that some analysts express concerns over the feasibility and reliability of these advanced systems, citing technological and integration challenges and cost

DDG(X)’s operational concept and mission

The DDG(X)’s operational concept and mission are based on the Navy’s vision of distributed maritime operations (DMO), which is a new way of fighting in the maritime domain that exploits the advantages of dispersed, networked, and resilient forces. DMO aims to counter the threats posed by China and Russia, which have developed anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities that can challenge the U.S. Navy’s access and freedom of maneuver in key regions, such as the Indo-Pacific and the Baltic Sea.

The DDG(X) will be a key enabler of DMO, as it will provide the surface fleet with the ability to operate in contested environments and deliver lethal and non-lethal effects across multiple domains. The DDG(X) will have four main missions, according to the Naval Sea 

Systems Command

• Air and Missile Defense: The DDG(X) will be able to defend itself and other naval assets from air and missile threats, such as aircraft, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, and hypersonic weapons. The DDG(X) will also be able to conduct offensive strikes against enemy air and missile systems, using its own hypersonic missiles, lasers, and electromagnetic railguns.

•  Surface Warfare: The DDG(X) will be able to engage and destroy enemy surface ships and coastal targets, using its hypersonic missiles, lasers, electromagnetic railguns, and torpedoes. The DDG(X) will also be able to conduct maritime security operations, such as counter-piracy, counter-terrorism, and counter-proliferation.

•  Undersea Warfare: The DDG(X) will be able to detect and track enemy submarines and mines, using its advanced sonar and towed array systems. The DDG(X) will also be able to attack enemy submarines and mines, using its torpedoes, lasers, and electromagnetic railguns.

•  Information Warfare: The DDG(X) will be able to collect and disseminate intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) data, using its sensors, drones, and communication systems. The DDG(X) will also be able to conduct electronic warfare (EW) and cyber warfare (CW) operations, using its jammers, decoys, and hackers.

The DDG(X) will be able to perform these missions in a distributed and networked manner, meaning that it will be able to operate independently or in coordination with other naval platforms and systems, such as aircraft carriers, submarines, amphibious ships, littoral combat ships, unmanned vehicles, and satellites. The DDG(X) will also be able to adapt to different scenarios and threats, using its flexible and scalable design that can accommodate future technologies and missions.

Additional Insights on the DDG(X) Program

Recent discussions in the defense technology sphere, as highlighted in a Popular Science article, bring to light several intriguing aspects of the DDG(X) program. The article emphasizes the Navy’s vision for the DDG(X) to be equipped with powerful lasers, a significant leap from traditional destroyer armaments. This aligns with the Navy’s ongoing pursuit of cutting-edge technologies to maintain maritime superiority.

Lasers as a Game-Changer: The DDG(X) is envisioned to carry a forward-mounted 150-kilowatt laser and two rear-mounted 600-kilowatt lasers. These high-powered lasers could revolutionize naval warfare, offering rapid and efficient defense against various threats, including incoming missiles, drones, and even small manned vessels. The implementation of such advanced laser systems is a testament to the Navy’s forward-thinking approach in adapting to modern warfare scenarios.

Balancing Innovation with Practicality: While embracing innovation, the DDG(X) program also appears to be learning from past experiences, such as the challenges faced by the Zumwalt-class destroyers. Unlike the Zumwalt’s ambitious but problematic features, the DDG(X) aims for more modest, yet impactful advancements. This includes improved sensors, longer-range weapons, increased missile capacity, and an all-electric Integrated Power System, crucial for powering the new laser systems.

Efficiency and Sustainability: Another key aspect underlined in the article is the focus on efficiency and sustainability. The DDG(X) aims to achieve a 50 percent greater range and a 25 percent reduction in fuel usage compared to existing destroyers. This goal highlights the Navy’s commitment to operational efficiency and reduced logistical footprints, aligning with broader environmental and resource sustainability goals.

A Future-Proof Design: The DDG(X)’s design philosophy seems to be rooted in adaptability and future-proofing. While the hull form and specific components are yet to be finalized, there is a clear intent to create a platform that can evolve with emerging technologies and changing strategic needs. This approach ensures the DDG(X) remains relevant and formidable in the ever-evolving landscape of naval warfare.

Comparative Analysis – DDG(X) vs. Arleigh Burke-Class: Supporters of the DDG(X) highlight its advancements over the Arleigh Burke-class, focusing on enhanced stealth, advanced sensor arrays, and greater firepower with new weapon systems. They argue that the DDG(X) is a necessary evolution to maintain naval dominance. On the other hand, skeptics question whether these advancements justify the significant investment, especially considering the proven effectiveness of the existing fleet.

Land-Based Testing: A Pivotal Step in the DDG(X) Development:A recent milestone in the DDG(X) program was the inauguration of the DDG(X) Land Based Test Site (LBTS), as reported in March 2023. This facility, established by the Program Executive Office (PEO) Ships and the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Philadelphia Division (NSWCPD), represents a crucial step in advancing the design and capabilities of the DDG(X).

The Role of LBTS in Risk Reduction and Technical Oversight: The LBTS is not just a testing ground; it’s a cornerstone in ensuring the reliability and capability of the DDG(X)’s critical systems. Capt. Joseph Darcy of NSWCPD emphasized its importance, noting that the site will be instrumental in building the future of the U.S. Navy’s most advanced destroyers. The LBTS approach reflects a deliberate strategy to mitigate risks ahead of construction, aligning with the Navy’s goal of writing requirements from a place of knowledge rather than uncertainty.

Historical Context and Congressional Alignment: Rear Adm. Fred Pyle, Director, Surface Warfare Division (N96), highlighted the historical success of land-based testing for other ship classes like the Spruance and Arleigh Burke. This historical perspective underscores the value of the LBTS in comprehending new technologies and reducing risks. The alignment with Congress on the necessity of this test site reinforces its significance in the broader naval acquisition process.

Increased Capability and Operational Flexibility: The DDG(X), through developments at the LBTS, promises to offer substantial increases in range, efficiency, and time-on-station. This advancement will provide fleet commanders with greater operational flexibility and reduce the demand on fleet logistics. The emphasis on an evolutionary rather than revolutionary approach, integrating lessons learned from past shipbuilding programs, highlights the program’s pragmatic and informed development path. 

Legacy of Land-Based Testing at NSWCPD: NSWCPD’s rich history in land-based testing, dating back to 1943, and its experience with the DDG 51 Class Land Based Engineering Site (LBES) positions it uniquely for the DDG(X) program. The site’s ability to test full-scale propulsion systems and other critical components plays a pivotal role in refining and perfecting the DDG(X)’s technologies.

Current Phase of the DDG(X) Program: 

As the DDG(X) currently resides in the concept refinement stage, prior to entering the preliminary design phase, the LBTS stands as a testament to the program’s methodical and data-driven approach. This phase is crucial in shaping the future design and capabilities of what is set to be the country’s next enduring guided missile destroyer.

Operational Concept and Mission: Proponents of the DDG(X) underscore its strategic role within the Distributed Maritime Operations framework, envisaging it as a game-changer in various conflict scenarios. However, there are voices that caution about over-reliance on any single platform, emphasizing the need for a diverse and balanced fleet. 

Trade-offs and Opportunities: The development of the DDG(X) reflects a series of strategic decisions balancing technological advancement with cost. While supporters argue that these trade-offs are essential for future readiness, critics point to budgetary constraints and the risks of focusing too heavily on high-end capabilities at the expense of other naval needs.

Audience Engagement: We recognize that this topic generates diverse opinions, and we value your perspective. Your questions and comments about the DDG(X) help deepen our discussion, offering a platform for varied viewpoints.

Challenges and Future Outlook: Despite its potential, the DDG(X) faces challenges, including budgetary pressures and technological risks. Looking forward, we explore how the program might evolve to meet the Navy’s future needs while considering the broader debates surrounding its development.

Summary and Conclusion

The DDG(X) represents a significant stride in naval innovation, yet it stands at the center of an ongoing debate. It embodies the Navy’s push towards advanced technological capabilities, but this comes with its own set of challenges and differing opinions.

Teaser for Next Episode:

In our next episode, we’ll expand our exploration to the global stage, examining how emerging technologies like the DDG(X) influence international naval dynamics. How does the evolving U.S. Navy strategy shape and respond to global maritime challenges? Stay tuned for more.