The U. S. Navy: A New Destroyer Class

This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected.  Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies.  Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue.  The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.

The Navy is about to begin con­struction of a new destroyer class that could rival or exceed the Oliver Haz­ard Perry (FFG-7) frigates as the larg­est class of surface warships built in the West since World War II.¹ Lead ship of the new class, the DDG-51, is planned for authorization in fiscal year 1985 and delivery in 1990. Current Navy planning calls for 63 of these ships to be constructed.

The DDG-51 is a multipurpose de­stroyer with an emphasis on antiair warfare (AAW). The program was in­itiated in the mid-1970s, mainly to re­place the missile-armed cruisers and destroyers that would be retired from the fleet beginning in the mid-1980s.² Forty-nine new destroyers were en­visioned when the program was be­gun: 24 ships to operate with nuclear- powered cruisers (CGNs), Ticonder- oga (CG-47)-class Aegis cruisers, and Spruance (DD-963)-class destroyers in 12 carrier battle groups; nine ships to team with CG-47s in three surface action groups (SAGs); eight ships to escort the amphibious forces; and eight ships to help escort replenishment groups.

After informal discussions within the Navy, a formal DDX (later DDGX) study was undertaken from May 1978 to June 1979 to develop the destroy­er’s characteristics and systems. The study group’s guidance called for a ship that would be “affordable" in signif­icant numbers and that would be “battle group capable” in strike, an­tisurface, antiair, and antisubmarine warfare areas. However, AAW was stressed, with the requirement for the ship to have missile magazines suffi­cient to engage two Soviet air attacks, each consisting of several waves, be­fore the ship had to rearm.

Further, the Chief of Naval Oper­ations tasked the study group with de­veloping a ship with a displacement of 5,500 to 6,500 tons. This stipulation seems to have had two rationales: first, the age-old effort to make a ship smaller and hence cheaper on a per-unit basis; and, second, to avoid the DDGX being competitive with the Aegis "de­stroyer,” the then-9,000-ton DDG-47 (subsequently redesignated CG-47 on 1 January 1980).

Not specifically stated, but implied from the outset of the study, was a prohibition against advanced-technol­ogy designs. Similarly, despite the ex­istence of Title VIII, the congres­sional legislation dictating that all future battle group-capable escorts be nu­clear propelled, that form of ship pro­pulsion was not a factor. The earlier triumph of the DDG-47/CG-47 design over the nuclear strike cruiser (CSGN) or even an improved version of the Virginia (CGN-38)-class cruiser had laid the nuclear escort issue to rest for at least a decade.

Several innovative systems and de­sign concepts were considered for the DDGX, and several would be incor­porated into the new ship. While the DDGX study group developed a set of alternative designs, a number of na­val officers, defense analysts, and planners of Litton/Ingalls Shipbuild­ing, the yard constructing the Aegis cruisers as well as the Spruance (DD- 963) and Kidd (DDG-993) classes, were proposing a different approach to the DDGX.

But the fear that a ship based on the Spruance! Kidd designs would be competitive with the Aegis ship pre­vailed. Also, there were some design developments since the DD-963 had been developed in the mid-1960s. Eventually a smaller ship design was adopted, known as alternative 3A in the DDGX study report. The design adopted, the basis of which was known as alternative 3A in the DDGX study report, is smaller than the Spruance/ Kidd designs and is not based on 1960s’ technology.

As currently configured, the ship has a number of improvements over her predecessors. These include: enhanced protection against the ef­fects • of chemical-biological-radio­logical (CBR) weapons through an ov­erpressure system; steel superstruc­ture, a lesson relearned after the Belk­nap (CG-26) collision and fire in 1975; moving the combat direction center— known in days past as the combat in­formation center (CIC)—into the hull for more protection; increasing blast, shock, and electromagnetic pulse (EMP) protection; a distributive or “federated" combat system architec­ture to enhance survivability and fa­cilitate updating: introducing the ad­vanced AN/UYK-43/44 computers: and a modified hull form for better seakeeping and enhanced volume within displacement constraints. (See Table I for the DDG-51’s character­istics.)

The new destroyer will have a length of approximately 466 feet and a beam of 60-62 feet, compared with a Sprit- ance's length of 563'A feet and a beam of 55 feet. This hull form results in improved seakeeping, especially at cruising speed, over the Spruance. It also gives the new ship about the same internal volume as the Spruance, while having a smaller superstructure, less draft, and less displacement. (Be­cause the change in length-to-beam ra­tio results in a less efficient hull form from a viewpoint of speed, the DDG- 51’s gas turbines will be uprated to 100,000 horsepower, with a reversible reduction gear and fixed-pitch pro­pellers: this will power the ship at a speed of greater than 30 knots.)

An attempt was made to find an al­ternative to the RCA AN/SPY-I radar used in the Aegis ship. Eight alter­native radars were looked at, but the SPY-ID derivative of the RCA radar was adopted. Apparently, the devel­opment of an alternative radar would have further delayed construction of the ship, there were benefits to be derived from using a variant of a radar already in the fleet, and RCA has been able to make significant reductions in the system's size. Similarly, alterna­tives to the large General Electric AN/ SQS-53 sonar were considered. The decision was made to provide a light­weight version, known as the SQS-53C.

Both as a weight-saving feature and because of the timing in the Navy’s on-again/off-again attitude toward guns, the 3 A ship initially had no guns except for two Phalanx close-in weapon system (C1WS) Gatling-type guns. Subsequently, the design was modi­fied to provide for a single OTO Me- lara 76-mm. antiaircraft gun in addi­tion to the CIWS. More protests from gun advocates led to a further revision to provide a single Mk-45 lightweight 5-inch/54 caliber dual-purpose gun, fitted aft of the superstructure.

More critical for an AAW ship was the question of magazine size. The Spruance derivatives can accommo­date either two Mk-26 conventional missile launchers (up to 44 missiles each) or two Ex-31 vertical launch systems (VLSs). each with 61 mis­siles. Size constraints have led to the decision to fit the DDG-51 with one- and-a-half vertical launchers, for a to­tal of 90 missiles. This meets the CNO's criteria of fighting off two attacks, but marks a 25% reduction from the Spru­ance hull's potential VLS capability.

Still, the "bottom line" was that the ship was growing in size. The DDG- 51 now displaces some 8,500 tons, ex­ceeding the upper range of the CNO’s original tasking to the DDGX study

Displacement:

Length:

Beam:

Draft:

Propulsion:

Speed:

Range:

Manning:

Helicopters:

Missiles:

Guns:

ASW weapons: Radars:

Sonars:

Fire control: Electronic warfare:

group by some 2,000 tons. Attempts to reach the higher tonnage required some deletions. The DDG-51 will not have a helicopter hangar. The ship will be fitted with a helicopter platform and will be able to accommodate a LAMPS III (SH-60B) helicopter. The ship will have three Mk-99 missile directors (in­stead of four as in the CG-47). a thou­sand miles less cruising range than the CG-47. and no battle group command facilities.

fable 2 Current Surface Combat Force Level Goals

CC,N CG-47 DDG-51 DDG-993 DD-V63 FFIFFG

Table 1 Tentative DDG-51 Characteristics

8,500 tons full load 466 ft. (139.8 m.)

60-62 ft. (18-18.6 m.)

25 ft. (7.5 m.)

4 gas turbines (LM2500); 100,000 s.h.p.: 2 shafts 30+ knots

5,000 nm. at 20 knots 305

landing area only

90-cell VLS for Standard-MR SM-2/Tomahawk/AS- ROC

8 canisters for Harpoon

1 5-in. (l27-mm.)/54 cal. DP Mk-45

2  20-mm. Phalanx CIWS Mk-15 ASROC (vertical launch)

6 12.75-in. (324-mm.) torpedo tubes Mk-32 (triple) (4) SPY-ID phased-array multi-function 1 SPS-67 surface search/navigation SQS-53C bow-mounted SQR-19 towed array

3  Mk-99 illuminators

I Gunfire Control System SLQ-32(V)2 ECM suite SLQ-25 Nixie torpedo countermeasures SRBOC (chaff launchers)

The Navy now plans to initiate the DDG-51 program with the lead ship in