Home » Budget Industry » Document: Report to Congress on Navy Destroyer Programs

Document: Report to Congress on Navy Destroyer Programs

The following is the March 24, 2015 Congressional Research Service report, Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress.

  • Rob C.

    What a mess. Their cornered in with budget, unable to produce a new design, that can support new weaponry. DDG-1000 wasn’t designed as air-warfare, then politicians squashed it. Repeat DDG-52s and Flight III cost just as much now, since you need production large quality of vessel to keep prices down in the first place.

    Perhaps Zumwalt Class can be active platforms test new technologies, while fulfilling mission they were intended for, general warfare and fire-support. US Navy will never get their Future Surface Combatant designed if they can stick with a plan and keep politicians meddling with it when they get it actually right.

    Flight IIIs will be less capable than the planned CG-Xs, the Navy not sure what its going do next. It too bad they could have gone with a cruiser design like they needed to fit the new radar. My bigger issue is that everything has to shoot down Ballistic Missile down, perhaps lacking additional information…to me that dumb if you want be able handle other threats.

    • Marjus Plaku

      The Zumwalt ships will feature the first ‘war-fighting’ rails in the Navy. I agree that focus on BMD is dumb, mostly because using hit to kill technology is absurd, if they were using small yield warheads then I could see the point. CGs will be made at some point, and the destroyers are not quite what they can be. Anyway, the only good news is linkage and comms, jamming and EM control. With a Hawkeye up, even if the TAO is asleep in the CIC, he can be alerted to launch some birds and the kill-chains will take care of the rest, before the enemy, hopefully, can range the friendless. Longer ranged and smarter munitions as well as more sensors and linkage is the way to go, who cares what the bus looks like.

    • Secundius

      @ Rob C.

      The problem is, is the next planned build of the Planned CG-X, Isn’t PLANNED until 2035, at the earliest….

  • Dan

    2 maybe 3 Zumwalts, who cares? Same number of rail gun’s, great.. One in the yards in overhaul and its a big world, point-not enough for the money. President Reagon’s might is right policy doesn’t seem to be important any more, doing more with much less and sending ships to sea with nothing seems ok, referring to the NONE impressive Perry’s for about 13 years, what a joke. By not having the Perrys in the fleet for all those years could have kept the Battleships active and just think, the battleships would have had plenty of targets while updating there systems on a continuous basis. Im so pleases we here in the U.S have such a value on having the most powerful museaum fleet in the world while putting garbage to sea. Lets compare, a reported obsolete battleship with all of its Tomahawks, Harpoon’s and guns oh my compared to a Perry class guided nothing (FF) not FFG, lets get it right. Anyone who dares debate this I say this to you- I will sail on Wisconsin and you can sail on a Perry and lets dual, I will live with the shame of sailing on the obsolete vessel and you can simply sink, I am willing to call it even.