By Geoff Fein
A Northrop Grumman [NOC]-funded effort has determined that the Navy would be best served by building a scalable and flexible cruiser that takes advantage of the DDG-1000 hull form.
Additionally, the Navy has completed the CG(X) Analysis of Alternatives and the document is currently being staffed by Navy leadership, a Navy spokesman told Defense Daily yesterday.
Northrop Grumman has developed a scalable, easily upgradable design concept for CG(X) that will leverage this nation’s investment in the new DDG-1000, Philip Teel, president, Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, told Defense Daily in a written statement.
“Northrop Grumman has assembled a highly experienced, multi-disciplined team to develop a CG(X) solution based upon the ‘parent craft’ approach. This solution is the most cost effective approach to address the current and projected future threat,” he said.
The uncertainty of future threats that a new cruiser might face and the desire of the Navy to keep shipbuilding costs in check led the company’s Naval Systems Integration Group (NSIG) to conclude that a modified repeat of DDG-1000 is the best path forward for CG(X), Clark Graham, senior vice president Naval Systems Integration, told Defense Daily in a recent interview.
“We are saying the ship ought to be designed to be scalable and flexible over the life time of the ship as opposed to designed to a particular point design solution,” he said.
If NSIG were to pick point design requirements that were too onerous, then the ship would not be affordable initially and Northrop Grumman might not be able to get a ship that it can build in sufficient quantities, Graham said.
“Plus not every one of the class of ships might need that capability, that high level of capability, in every deployment, because you are going to deploy this ship in different localities, different scenarios,” he said. “But if you then pick a point design that is too low, then you’d be facing block obsolescence and the ship is not going to have a long service life. So we concluded that we ought to approach CG(X) with scalability, flexibility and affordability as fundamental tenants.”
One example of scalability is how NSIG looked at the radar capability for CG(X), Graham said. CG(X) will have a much more capable radar. Instead of designing a radar that is many times over more sensitive than the current system, why not design a radar that can be scaled up during the lifetime of the ship, but without having to do any major work on the ship?
“That means the physical architecture and the functional logical architecture has been conceptualized to be able to scale that capability without needing an industrial environment,” Graham explained. “That’s quite compelling. That’s a tough thing, but you can see the logic as to why that’s a good thing to do.”
NSIG took the concept of scalable and flexible and superimposed it on the idea that CG(X) should be a modified repeat design of something that has already been engineered and that the Navy has made the investment, as opposed to a new design ship, he added.
“Why do we think that? The obvious reason [is] you want to recapture…reuse the investment,” Graham said. “So what are the logical mod repeat platforms to investigate?”
NSIG came back with three: DDG-51, LPD-17, and DDG-1000.
“Those are the three modern ships we would consider [to be] about the right size. We didn’t have any preconceived idea of which is the best of those. We looked at all three,” Graham noted. “We concluded that DDG-51 is too small to be scaled up to be a cruiser. It was designed as a pretty tight efficient destroyer. The LPD-17 at 25,000 tons is too large, it is overlay large. DDG-1000 is about the right size ship, plus the DDG-1000 has been designed in every aspect to be modified into an AAW (anti-aircraft warfare) ship. The basic Navy industrial team had that as an objective.”
NSIG found that the DDG-1000 makes a very nice point of departure. “It has many of the attributes that you would want to be modified into a different mission ship,” Graham said.
“We have found that you can get a very capable CG(X) that has scalable flexible capability to the level with think is needed on a DDG-1000 mod repeat,” he added. “That’s been our conclusion. That’s what we have presented to the Navy of our finding of our multi sector team.”
One issue facing the Navy with CG(X) is that some lawmakers are pushing for the cruiser to be nuclear powered. While NSIG did not address a nuclear variant of its modified repeat ship, Graham noted that a mod repeat by definition is going to repeat the machinery plant of the parent ship.
“So the mod repeat of a DDG-51 is a gas turbine mechanical plant. The mod repeat of a LPD-17 is a diesel mechanical plant, and DDG-1000 is a gas turbine integrated electric plant,” he said. “In our mod repeat that basic architecture of the machinery plant…we just modified it but didn’t change it.”
NSIG didn’t look at a new design nuclear ship or a new design non-nuclear ship because its approach always was that the right solution for the Navy is a modified repeat ship, Graham added. “Our basic approach to a mod repeat ship is that we retain those characteristics of the parent. So all of those features of DDG-1000 translate into similar unique features of CG(X).”
What Northrop Grumman is proposing is to provide a solution that follows along the “commonality equals affordability” theme the Navy is pursuing, Eric Womble, vice president of Advanced Capabilities Group, told Defense Daily.
“If we come down a learning curve on [DDG-1000s] and then take that same hull and continue to come down a learning curve for CG(X)s, suddenly you are starting to replicate the DDG-51 program…62 ships…[the] learning curve…no one is complaining about the DDG-51 program. The Navy is getting a very high quality ship,” he said. “If you can get [DDG- 1000] to CG(X), now you start coming down a similar learning curve.”
Another benefit of a mod repeat ship, Graham said, is that everyone learns to live within the constraints of an existing hull form.
“You don’t have the option to invent new requirements and new design standards that you could if you had a blank sheet of paper,” he said. “Sometimes it’s good to have that discipline of the constraints of something that has already been built. That’s why we have always thought that a mod repeat solution would be the affordable solution for the Navy.”
Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead has stated he wants to suppress requirements appetites, Womble said. “He also says he wants to suppress technical specifications appetites.
“By going with an existing hull you help the Navy suppress requirements appetites, therefore leading to affordability,” he said. “By going scalable, flexible on radar, IPS (integrated power system), launchers, those sort of things, you now give them the requirements they need for the next generation cruiser.”
The more Northrop Grumman can have a run of ships, whether it is DDG-1000 hulls, LPD-17 hulls, or National Security Cutter hulls, Womble said the company can provide the Navy quality ships that meet the service’s requirements at an affordable price and still make money for Northrop Grumman’s shareholders.
One issue that has raised concern about DDG-1000 is its unique tumble hull and whether it is stable enough for a surface combatant. Graham said DDG-1000’s hull has all the same stability requirements as a traditional flared hull.
“There is a fear of the unknown and this ship has not gone to sea even though we have had extensive model testing, the most extensive model testing you can imagine and analytical predictions,” he said. “And all of that model testing shows this ship is as survivable as a DDG-51 or CG-52 in similar sea states.”