Put another way, if you were buying a computer, would you go backward in time and buy a single core Pentium IV for $2000 or buy a new quad core for $2500? If those were your choices, I doubt there would be a question, yet that is exactly what the Navy appears to be doing in purchasing 51′s.

(Oh btw, those prices don’t even include the BDM systems the Navy is supposedly desperate for, and is not planning to order.)

Sure, it may facotr into increased countermeasures effectiveness…but when operating in the littorals where the Mk1 Mod 0 Eyeball serves as a primary targeting tool, stealth proves a bit less useful in Susceptibility Reduction…

“The DDG-1000’s flight deck is 10 feet higher off the water and can therefore be used for full flight operations in a sea state (i.e., sea condition) that is at least one step higher (i.e., rougher) than is possible for the flight deck on the DDG-51.”

Also note there are VLS cells in the after part of the ship alongside the flight deck that can be used when sea conditions prohibit the use of the forward VLS cells.

Some more interesting DDG 1000 facts:

- “The firm track range of the DDG-1000’s dual-band radar — the range at which it can maintain firm tracks on targets — is 25% greater for most target types than the firm track range of the DDG-51’s SPY-1 radar. The DDG-1000’s AAW combat system would be able to maintain about 10 times as many tracks as the DDG-51’s Aegis system. The DDG-1000’s radar has much more capability for resisting enemy electronic countermeasures and for detecting targets amidst littoral “clutter.”

- “The DDG-1000’s bow-mounted sonar includes an instride mine-avoidance capability; the DDG-51’s sonar suite has less capability for detecting mines.”

- “The gas-management (i.e., heat-management) system of the DDG-1000’s VLS tubes can accommodate a hotter-burning missile than the gas-management system of the DDG-51’s VLS, so the DDG-1000 might be more capable of using future missiles if they are hotter-burning.”

- “The DDG-1000’s flight deck is larger than the DDG-51’s and can accommodate all joint rotary-wing aircraft, including the MV-22, the CH-53, and the
H-47.”

- “The DDG-1000 has additional berthing for 20 SOF personnel (i.e., a platoon), as well as a space for SOF mission planning and spaces for stowing SOF gear. The DDG-51 lacks these features.”

- “The DDG-1000 can embark two 11-meter boats and four rubber raiding craft that are deployed and recovered with a stern ramp, which permits faster and safer launching and recovering, and launch/recovery operations in higher sea states.”

- “The C4I and networking systems on the DDG-1000 would have five times as much bandwidth as those on the DDG-51.”

I seem to recall that DDG 51 Class also has “stealth” as part of it’s design.

I for one would much rather present a smaller vice larger target (RCS) to a threat weapon; either that, or we need to revert back to the days of BB’s and armor (don’t forsee the IOWA Class being recommissioned any time soon).

“Let’s not forget that silly looking semi-submersible foc’sl…”

The hull form has been tank and scale tested in varying sea states and from what I’ve heard, performs to spec. True the bow will be a “wet” area, there should be no personnel out there while underway (no lifelines for RCS purposes) and the hull will slice through waves vice rise and fall like traditional hulls.

Concur with Sid regarding the stealth.

As an erstwhile 48C/55B kinda guy, I would say that we looked forward to the increased capability of Aegis. We knew we couldn’t keep up in an AS-4 world. Don’t remember anybody resisting the change to better things.

The major issue with the DDG-1000 is the idea that the supposed efficacy of stealth in the littorals -which in turn drove the use of the hullform and myriad other crimping design requirements- is going to prove worth all the expense and limitiations imposed on the design.

I for one don’t think it will pan out as hoped.