Troubled DDG 1000 faces shipyard problems - Navy News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Navy Times

Troubled DDG 1000 faces shipyard problems

One month after the Defense Department signaled that it was changing the Navy’s position on whether to build a third Zumwalt-class destroyer, confusion remains as to why the Navy backed off the program in the first place — and now whether the Navy will be able to build the first two ships.

Sources familiar with the issue say that problems have arisen in guaranteeing the seals between the composite construction panels of the ship’s huge deckhouse. The structure — one of 10 key engineering development models — is to be built by Northrop Grumman’s dedicated composite facility at Gulfport, Miss.

The deckhouse is one of the major changes in the DDG 1000 over previous warships. All of the ship’s major sensors — radars, missile guidance systems, electronic warfare and other sensors — are embedded in the structure, and all of the ship above the first superstructure level is contained in the composite structure. A partial test section of the structure has been built, and Northrop and Navy officials have maintained that there are no significant problems with the composite deckhouse.

Navy officials hadn’t responded to questions by Sept. 12, but Northrop issued a statement that day.

“Our testing program of the composite deck house is very mature and continues to meet the technical requirements of the design,” Northrop said.

But one source familiar with the situation said the Navy is so worried about the problem that it has been canvassing other manufacturers of composite structures to see whether an alternate production source could be found.

The technical problems add another wrinkle to an already controversial program which, after years of staunch support, the Navy essentially rejected July 31, when top shipbuilding officials told lawmakers that the program was incapable of defeating certain enemy missiles and should be cut short at just two hulls. The officials said the service should instead continue building Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, which they said are already designed to counter the threat.

Top Defense Department officials then sent letters to lawmakers in mid-August saying the Navy had been “directed” to go back and press for the third ship in the fiscal 2009 budget.

Standard missile controversy

One of the key questions provoked by the July 31 testimony was the assertion by Vice Adm. Barry McCullough, the Navy’s requirements chief, that DDG 1000s “cannot successfully employ the Standard Missile-2, SM-3 or SM-6 missile.”

The SM-2 is the Navy’s primary area air defense weapon, intended to reach out 40 to 90 nautical miles to destroy enemy aircraft, missiles or ships; SM-3 is a ballistic missile defense weapon; and SM-6 is the SM-2 replacement under development by Raytheon. The missile is what provides the “G” in “DDG.”

A DDG, or guided-missile destroyer, is able to provide air defense for other ships such as aircraft carriers, amphibious ships or merchant convoys. A “DD,” or destroyer, might be armed with surface-to-surface missiles such as Harpoons or Tomahawks, or carry point-defense missiles such as Sea Sparrows to defend itself.

The DDG 1000 designation, a mix of the DDG classification and the DD hull number series, is viewed with ambiguity by many naval professionals, but the Navy firmly and consistently described the ship as capable of operating the Standard Missile — until July 31.

Congress, industry and naval analysts remain confused as to why the Navy now says the DDG 1000 cannot use the Standard Missile.

“Our [combat system] design has the SM-2 using the same link as used in all the other ships,” said Dan Smith, president of Raytheon’s Integrated Defense Systems division. “The Volume Search radar is essentially the same as the SPY-1D” Aegis radar used in all current DDGs and cruisers.

“I can’t answer the question as to why the Navy is now asserting that after years of funding and years of documentation that Zumwalt is not equipped with an SM-2 capability,” Smith said.

Navy officials have declined to explain the issue, tying it to responses about a ballistic missile defense capability the service did not require the DDG 1000s to have.

‘This whole thing is very strange’

Congress continues to consider the 2009 defense budget, which officially requests the third DDG 1000. The Navy, for now, isn’t advocating whether the ship be a 1000 or 51.

“Making certain that we have — I’ll just say, a destroyer — in the ’09 budget is more important than whether that’s a DDG 1000 or a DDG 51,” Navy Secretary Donald Winter told Navy Times on Sept. 4.

The Navy’s changing rationales and positions have baffled even its staunchest supporters.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, in whose state the first DDG 1000 would be built at the General Dynamics Bath Iron Works shipyard, is widely viewed as the strongest champion for the ship on Capitol Hill. Yet she says she is still in the dark.

“I’ve yet to get an answer to what changed,” Collins told Navy Times on Sept. 9.

“If there is a serious new threat from China,” Collins added, “it seems to us the Navy should have come to us and given us a classified briefing. That still hasn’t occurred. There are these vague references to this new Chinese missile, but the Navy’s never given us a briefing. You would think that if this threat was emerging and potent, the Navy would have come and given us a classified briefing.

“This whole thing is very strange,” Collins declared. “I’m baffled by the way this has been handled.”

The Navy’s industrial partners aren’t entirely sure what’s going on either. Spokesmen for shipbuilders Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics would not comment on the situation, but sources inside the companies said no Navy DDG 1000 briefings have been forthcoming. Raytheon, however, was more forceful.

“There’s been zero communication between the Navy and us about this,” Smith said.