Continuing Coverage: DD(X)

Here's another article about DD(X), the U.S. Navy's twenty-first century destroyer program.

WASHINGTON — The Navy, seeking a greater role as the United States wages wars far inland, is pushing an expensive, experimental destroyer it says will be able to bomb targets well away from shore.

The Navy is trying to improve its ability to conduct fire support — using heavy guns to assist Marines or soldiers ashore, much like land-based artillery does. The frequency of such naval fire support missions have declined during conflicts of the last half-century, and the Navy has turned to expensive cruise missiles instead of guns to hit targets farther inland.

The proposed destroyer, called the DD(X) (search), would fill a gap opened with the removal from service of the last battleships more than a decade ago, Navy officials contend. But the DD(X) has its critics, who say the Navy is betting on technologies that aren't fully developed and argue the ship is too expensive.

The first DD(X) is projected to cost $3.3 billion, but sister ships would be cheaper, the Navy says. Since 2004, however, the Navy's estimated costs per ship have gone up almost 50 percent for ships built after the first of their class, the Congressional Research Service says.

One proposal before Congress would cap the price per ship at $1.7 billion, forcing the Navy to redesign the DD(X) to something smaller and probably less capable.

The arguments that these so-called "critics" of the DD(X) program are making are the same arguments made against the ballistic missile defense system, which has been successfully tested several times now. As for being too expensive, what price do you want to put on national security?

The DD(X) class will most likely serve in the same capacity that both destroyers and frigates serve in now. The cost for a single vessel may be high, but the capability of just one vessel is designed not only to meet the needs of the entire military, not just the Navy, in the twenty-first century, but also to reduce America's need for physical vessels. This is to say, if you can substitute one DD(X) for a destroyer and a frigate, you're saving money in the long run.

I can tell you for a fact, having studied naval history, tactics, and strategy now for about six years, with an emphasis on amphibious operations, that naval gunfire support is an integral element in today's amphibious doctrine. The suggestion mentioned in the article, that we recommission World War II era battleships, is really pretty asinine, particularly when you take into account that the only reason that those battleships held on as long as they did was that they were refitted to carry Tomahawk cruise missiles.

Would you expect the Air Force to continue using Korean War era jets? Would you expect the Army or the Marine Corps to use Sherman tanks, or Vietnam era howitzers? Of course not. You would expect all of the service branches to continuously develop new equipment to meet emerging threats while maintaining the capability to deal with current and recent threat situations. That's exactly what the Navy is doing with DD(X), and these other systems.

Guided Missile Submarines (converted from ballistic missile subs)

next-generation Fast Attack Submarines

High Speed Vessels

Fast Sea Frame

You can find more extensive information about all of these vessel types at Global Security.

DD(X) is the future of U.S. Navy littoral and amphibious warfare support. It will save money in the long run, and will meet the continued national security needs of the United States. That is why its creation and propagation is crucial.