https://armyrecognition.com/news/navy-news/2024/focus-us-navys-next-gen-destroyer-what-ddgx-will-bring-to-future-of-naval-warfare
Next, we start to turn a bit negative. This is overall favorable until the last paragraph where they bring in the lengthened Burke idea (cue doom music...)
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/navys-ddgx-destroyer-has-one-clear-mission-209838
Now, we go full negative. Much as I like the ship, I have to say there is plenty to think about here:
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2024/12/the-u-s-navys-ddgx-destroyer-nightmare-explained-in-1-word/
Finally, we have the ideas of a professional naval analyst. I have great respect for Bryan Clark. His argument for larger numbers of smaller ships is militarily and budgetarily sound. Numbers win wars. And there are other ways to view the bigger picture beyond just "a great destroyer." Do we need a destroyer?
https://breakingdefense.com/2024/01/the-surface-navy-should-design-for-competition-rethink-fleet-make-up/
This will end up a political battle (as they all do) played out in the back halls of Congress by lobbyists with interests on all sides...surface warfare, submarine warfare, drone industry folks, etc.
So, yes, this ship could get canceled, depending on "whose vision" wins out in the end.
One of the nice things about being a model builder is that I can choose what pleases me. I will be pleased to have it, whether it ends up real or not. Previous Message
I understand. It isn't just potential tech failures which jeopardize this project. I have read several articles complaining about the cost. The "theme" of the US Navy these days is a long term outlook of budgets that will continue to be flat in the face of inflation, funding that is not stable due to Congress producing continuing resolutions and not actual budgets, the Columbia class project consumes 40% of the Navy's development budget, and all this forces the Navy to prioritize "what is and isn't important." One opinion piece I read said the Navy should cancel the DDGX and focus on submarine development, and "just use a stretched Burke instead." Great, but the Navy has repeatedly said the Burke design is maxed out, and does not have the power generating capacity to handle projected future systems. Unfortunately though, this is a common theme in articles advocating not building the DDGX..."just use a stretched Burke." I am not at all sure it even could work like that, but if several members of Congress get hold of that, and want to defeat the program, that is what the Navy will be told, workable or not.
So, you are wise to hold off on getting this subject. It is about 50-50 that it will be canceled before construction even starts at this point. From a technical aspect, it looks more sound. It is using the AEGIS system and radars of a Flight III, and currently in-service weapons with room to swap them for future newer ones. There is some question of the power plant, and this is the tech issue that could kill it. If they conservatively choose not to go with the new power plant originally proposed, and the plant they do put in can not support projected future power requirements, then there will be little compelling reason to have them. We may as well just use Burkes.
I am okay with the what-if, but your hesitation to get them is perfectly sound. Previous Message
It is important for the US Navy to be able to develop a new DDG/CG design. But the history of developing replacements is very unfortunate, with many failed programmes - and only the Zumwalt class has been built, but not fully equipped and only three ships. It would have been a superior design to the existing DDGs, but instead they are building an updated 1980s design with very limited growth potential (Arleigh Burke Flight III). Hopefully this time it will work - but the history makes me reluctant, as I only want to build ships that actually serve.
Without this history, I would probably have bought the kit straight away (as I have done with kits of other not yet completed ships).
Responses