Progress of the DD(X) Destroyer Program
Gao ID: GAO-05-752R June 14, 2005The Navy is developing a new destroyer, the DD(X), to serve as a next-generation multimission surface combatant ship. It will provide advanced land attack capability to support forces ashore and contribute to military dominance in shallow coastal water environments. To reduce program risk and demonstrate the ship's 12 technologies, the Navy is building 10 engineering development models that represent the ship's most critical subsystems. This approach is intended to improve the assessment of these key subsystems by designing, developing, and testing working models early in the process. In September 2004, we reported that while the engineering development model process could be beneficial, the program's schedule does not allow enough time to acquire appropriate levels of knowledge before key decisions are made. We also reported that some of the engineering development models were progressing according to plan, but others faced significant technical challenges. This letter provides an update on the progress of DD(X) subsystems, as demonstrated by recent tests and design reviews of the engineering development models. Our review concentrated on five of the ten engineering development models. These five development models were chosen because of their importance to the overall ship design, congressional interest in specific models, or the occurrence of recent test events. We provide more limited information on the remaining five development models.
The DD(X) program's demonstrations and component tests met the exit criteria for its engineering development models established by the Undersecretary's August 2004 memorandum. While progress has been made, the level of technology maturity demonstrated remains below what is recommended by best practices, as outlined in our September 2004 report. Tests of several engineering development models resulted in successful demonstration of exit criteria. In other cases, tests identified technical problems that will need to be overcome before ship installation or that have led to changes in the ship design. The permanent magnet motor, a key element of the integrated power system, failed tests, and was replaced by the advanced induction motor. Because the Navy maintained the induction motor as a fallback technology, the integrated power system was able to meet the exit criteria. The substitution of the advanced induction motor does change the noise, weight, and space usage of the power system, which could have implications for the ship design. The multifunction radar, a segment of the dual band radar, successfully completed the land-based testing described in the exit criteria, but the volume search radar has encountered technical problems with a key component. The integrated deckhouse and apertures development model will soon begin testing for antenna placement and radar cross section. Questions about the properties of the proposed component materials are delaying production of an article for fire and shock testing. The advanced gun system demonstrated exit criteria through modeling, and additional component tests have verified this performance. An early failure in required munitions flight testing was overcome, and two further flight tests have been completed successfully. Tests of the peripheral vertical launch system led to a redesign effort; tests to determine the suitability of the new design will complete in June 2005. Weight is a challenge for individual subsystems and the ship as a whole. The integrated power system, advanced gun system, and integrated deckhouse all have encountered problems staying within weight limits. These problems have contributed to overall weight growth in DD(X). As a result, the current design is slightly over the margin reserved for weight in the system development phase, which ends with critical design review in August. A number of key events to demonstrate technology will occur near the end of this phase, and it remains to be seen whether they will have any impact on weight. Other elements of the design for certain subsystems, including space issues for the power system and materials issues on the deckhouse, remain unclear. These challenges could result in changes late in design or during construction, leading to higher costs.
GAO-05-752R, Progress of the DD(X) Destroyer Program
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-752R
entitled 'Progress of the DD(X) Destroyer Program' which was released
on June 14, 2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
June 14, 2005:
The Honorable James M. Talent:
Chairman:
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Seapower:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Roscoe G. Bartlett:
Chairman:
The Honorable Gene Taylor:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Projection Forces:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:
Subject: Progress of the DD(X) Destroyer Program:
The Navy is developing a new destroyer, the DD(X), to serve as a next-
generation multimission surface combatant ship. It will provide
advanced land attack capability to support forces ashore and contribute
to military dominance in shallow coastal water environments. To reduce
program risk and demonstrate the ship's 12 technologies, the Navy is
building 10 engineering development models that represent the ship's
most critical subsystems. This approach is intended to improve the
assessment of these key subsystems by designing, developing, and
testing working models early in the process.
In September 2004, we reported that while the engineering development
model process could be beneficial, the program's schedule does not
allow enough time to acquire appropriate levels of knowledge before key
decisions are made. We also reported that some of the engineering
development models were progressing according to plan, but others faced
significant technical challenges.
This letter provides an update on the progress of DD(X) subsystems, as
demonstrated by recent tests and design reviews of the engineering
development models. Our review concentrated on five of the ten
engineering development models. These five development models were
chosen because of their importance to the overall ship design,
congressional interest in specific models, or the occurrence of recent
test events. We provide more limited information on the remaining five
development models. We conducted our work under the Comptroller
General's authority and are addressing the report to you because of
your subcommittee's jurisdiction on the issues discussed in this
report.
Background:
The program currently is approaching two key decision points. One is
Milestone B, when the Navy will decide on whether to authorize the
award of a detail design and construction contract for production of
the lead ship(s). In an August 2004 memorandum to the Secretary of the
Navy, the acting Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology
and Logistics detailed specific exit criteria to be met before
Milestone B. Milestone B was planned for March 2005 but has been
delayed several times and is now expected to take place before the end
of the fiscal year.
In addition to the Milestone B decision, the program will complete a
critical design review by August 2005. This review is intended to
demonstrate the design maturity of the ship and its readiness to
proceed to production.
To develop and test the ship's twelve critical technologies, the Navy
is building ten engineering development models that represent the
ship's most critical subsystems. The development models are described
in Table 1.
Table 1: Description of Engineering Development Models:
Engineering development models: Advanced gun system;
Description: Will provide long-range fire support for forces ashore
through the use of unmanned operations and the long-range land attack
projectile.
Engineering development models: Autonomic fire suppression system;
Description: Intended to reduce crew size by providing a fully
automated response to fires.
Engineering development models: Dual band radar;
Description: Horizon and volume search improved for performance in
adverse environments.
Engineering development models: Hull form;
Description: Designed to significantly reduce radar cross section.
Engineering development models: Infrared mockup;
Description: Seeks to reduce ship's heat signature in multiple areas.
Engineering development models: Integrated deckhouse and apertures;
Description: A composite structure that integrates apertures of radar
and communications systems.
Engineering development models: Integrated power system;
Description: Power system that integrates power generation, propulsion,
and power distribution and management.
Engineering development models: Integrated undersea warfare system;
Description: System for mine avoidance and submarine warfare with
automated software to reduce workload.
Engineering development models: Peripheral vertical launch system;
Description: Multipurpose missile launch system located on the
periphery of the ship to reduce damage to ship systems.[A].
Engineering development models: Total ship computing environment;
Description: Provides single computing environment for all ship systems
to speed command while reducing manning.
Source: DD(X) program office and contractors.
[A] The Navy refers to both the enclosure for the launcher and the full
subsystem as the Peripheral vertical launch system.
[End of table]
As a baseline for assessing developmental progress and for informing
decision making, the program has established two sets of quantitative
metrics, one for the ship as a whole, referred to as performance
parameters, and one for the engineering development models, referred to
as critical technical parameters. According to the DD(X) program's test
and evaluation plan, "failure to achieve a critical technical parameter
should be considered a reliable indicator that the system is behind in
the planned development schedule or will likely not achieve an
operational requirement.":
Summary:
The DD(X) program's demonstrations and component tests met the exit
criteria for its engineering development models established by the
Undersecretary's August 2004 memorandum. While progress has been made,
the level of technology maturity demonstrated remains below what is
recommended by best practices, as outlined in our September 2004
report. Tests of several engineering development models resulted in
successful demonstration of exit criteria. In other cases, tests
identified technical problems that will need to be overcome before ship
installation or that have led to changes in the ship design. The
permanent magnet motor, a key element of the integrated power system,
failed tests, and was replaced by the advanced induction motor. Because
the Navy maintained the induction motor as a fallback technology, the
integrated power system was able to meet the exit criteria. The
substitution of the advanced induction motor does change the noise,
weight, and space usage of the power system, which could have
implications for the ship design. The multifunction radar, a segment of
the dual band radar, successfully completed the land-based testing
described in the exit criteria, but the volume search radar has
encountered technical problems with a key component. The integrated
deckhouse and apertures development model will soon begin testing for
antenna placement and radar cross section. Questions about the
properties of the proposed component materials are delaying production
of an article for fire and shock testing. The advanced gun system
demonstrated exit criteria through modeling, and additional component
tests have verified this performance. An early failure in required
munitions flight testing was overcome, and two further flight tests
have been completed successfully. Tests of the peripheral vertical
launch system led to a redesign effort; tests to determine the
suitability of the new design will complete in June 2005. Additional
information on these five engineering development models is presented
in enclosures I to V. The status of the other five engineering
development models is discussed in enclosure VI.
Weight is a challenge for individual subsystems and the ship as a
whole. The integrated power system, advanced gun system, and integrated
deckhouse all have encountered problems staying within weight limits.
These problems have contributed to overall weight growth in DD(X). As a
result, the current design is slightly over the margin reserved for
weight in the system development phase, which ends with critical design
review in August.[Footnote 1] A number of key events to demonstrate
technology will occur near the end of this phase, and it remains to be
seen whether they will have any impact on weight. Other elements of the
design for certain subsystems, including space issues for the power
system and materials issues on the deckhouse, remain unclear. These
challenges could result in changes late in design or during
construction, leading to higher costs.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
The Department of Defense reviewed a draft of this letter and provided
technical comments which we incorporated as appropriate. Their response
is included as Enclosure VII.
Scope and Methodology:
To complete our review, we examined the DD(X) program's operational
requirements document, test and evaluation master plan, developmental
test reports, early operational assessment, and risk management plan.
We supplemented this information with discussions with Navy program and
test officials as well as key contractors. In addition, we visited
selected facilities to further enrich the quality of our analysis. We
conducted our work between January and June 2005 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
We are sending copies of this letter to the Honorable Donald H.
Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense; the Honorable Gordon R. England,
Secretary of the Navy; and interested congressional committees. We will
make copies available to other interested parties upon request. In
addition, the letter will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site
at http://www.gao.gov.
Please contact me at (202) 512-4841 if you or your staff have any
questions concerning this letter. Other major contributors to this
letter were Karen Zuckerstein, J. Kristopher Keener and Marc
Castellano.
Paul L. Francis, Director Acquisition and Sourcing Management:
Enclosures:
[End of section]
Enclosure I: Integrated Power System:
Summary:
Design of the propulsion and power distribution systems has changed
significantly. Due to problems discovered in component testing, the
advanced induction motor will be used in the design instead of the
permanent magnet motor, which will alter the ship's layout and increase
weight.
Description:
The integrated power system centrally generates and distributes power
to the ship for all functions, including propulsion. This design allows
greater flexibility in power use and will allow the integration of high
energy weapons in the future. The integrated power system consists of
three primary components: turbine generator sets, a power distribution
system, and propulsion motors. A significant technical challenge is
development of propulsion motors which are used to turn the shaft and
propeller. To reduce risk the program is carrying two designs of
propulsion motor, the permanent magnet motor and the advanced induction
motor.
Table 2: Performance Parameters Relating to Integrated Power System:
Performance parameters: Speed --rate at which the ship travels;
Threshold: 30 knots;
Objective: 30+ knots.
Performance parameters: Endurance --nautical miles the ship can travel;
Threshold: 4500 nm;
Objective: 6000 nm.
Performance parameters: Acoustic signature --low noise to avoid
detection;
Threshold: Classified;
Objective: Classified.
Performance parameters: Survivability --ability to produce power when
damaged;
Threshold: Identify and isolate faults, supply power as user requires;
Objective: Steady state power at set rate with one or more faults.
Sources: U.S. Navy (data); GAO (analysis and presentation).
[End of table]
Table 3: Critical Technical Parameters Relating to Integrated Power
System:
Critical technical parameters: Generator no load open circuit voltage;
Description: Ability of turbine generator sets to produce amount of
power needed;
Demonstrated? Yes.
Critical technical parameters: Generator full rated current at rated
speed;
Description: Ability of turbine generator sets to produce rate of power
needed;
Demonstrated? Yes.
Critical technical parameters: Motor and drive rated speed at rated
voltage;
Description: Ability of propulsion motor to produce power needed to
turn shaft;
Demonstrated? Yes.
Critical technical parameters: Main turbine generator set fuel
consumption at endurance load;
Description: Amount of fuel needed by turbine generator set to reach
endurance;
Demonstrated? Future.
Critical technical parameters: Propulsion motor torque at maximum rated
speed;
Description: Ability of propulsion motor to turn shaft and produce
speed;
Demonstrated? Future.
Sources: U.S. Navy (data); GAO (analysis and presentation).
[End of table]
Progress of Engineering Development Model:
In order to complete Milestone B for DD(X) the integrated power system
was required by the August 2004 memorandum to complete factory
acceptance testing[Footnote 2] on a number of critical components. All
the required tests have been performed and met expectations, with the
exception of the permanent magnet motor.
Table 4: Schedule of Key Events Relating to Integrated Power System:
2004:
October: Main turbine generator set factory acceptance test;
October: Advanced induction motor factory acceptance test;
November: Auxiliary turbine generator factory acceptance test;
2005:
January: Auxiliary turbine generator factory acceptance test;
January: Permanent magnet motor test failure;
July-September: Land-based testing of integrated power system;
2006 and beyond:
To be determined: Full power load test;
To be determined: Integration and testing with ship control system.
Source: U.S. Navy.
[End of table]
The program has completed initial testing on propulsion motors for
DD(X). The program is carrying two designs of propulsion motor, the
permanent magnet motor and the advanced induction motor. The program
prefers to use the permanent magnet motor due to its ability to meet
requirements with less weight and noise, but was carrying the advanced
induction motor as a backup. Recently, the permanent magnet motor
failed to demonstrate the speed needed to produce the required power.
The advanced induction motor tested successfully in October 2004 and
has now been selected as the propulsion motor for DD(X). This change
has implications for design as the advanced induction motor is heavier
and less efficient than the permanent magnet motor and will require
more space. The change to advanced induction motor also has
implications for testing scheduled for this summer. As these tests were
designed to use both propulsion motors, it is unclear whether the same
knowledge can be gained with just the advanced induction motor. The
program manager has stated that there is the possibility of
reintroducing the permanent magnet motor should it resolve its
problems.
Factory acceptance tests on turbine generators were performed to
demonstrate their ability to produce the power needed for DD(X). The
design for DD(X) requires two main turbine generators and two auxiliary
turbine generators which are tested to similar requirements. The main
turbine generator set, a Rolls-Royce MT-30 turbine and a generator
produced by Curtiss-Wright, was tested in October 2004. Due to
limitations of contractor facilities the turbine engine and the
generator were tested separately. Some problems with heat were
experienced in testing of the turbine engine, but program officials
have stated these issues have been resolved. The program tested two
different turbine engines for the auxiliary generator sets, a Rolls-
Royce MT-5 and a General Electric LM-500. Both turbine generator sets
demonstrated they were able to produce the power necessary and actually
produced more power than predicted.
Design of the power distribution system was also changed to reduce
weight and improve performance. According to officials, the Navy will
use a system it has been developing called "integrated fight through
power," which includes the use of solid state components and rapid
switching technologies.
[End of section]
Enclosure II: Dual Band Radar:
Summary:
Of the two major parts of the dual band radar subsystem, the
multifunction radar is proceeding well while the volume search radar
faces several technical challenges. Specifically, a core component of
the volume search radar encountered problems in testing, creating
additional pressure on an already challenging schedule.
Background:
The dual band radar monitors airborne and surface activities, guides
weaponry to targets, and conducts environmental mapping. The dual band
radar is made up of two major radar systems, the multifunction radar
and the volume search radar, unique technologies that are brought to
bear jointly on a range of critical tasks to improve overall depth and
quality of battlespace "vision." The volume search radar specializes in
providing information on aircraft, missiles, and other activities in
the vast, open sky environment. In contrast, the multifunction radar is
designed to monitor airspace at "horizon" or near-the-surface levels
for threats such as low-flying antiship cruise missiles.
Table 5: Performance Parameters Relating to Dual Band Radar:
Performance parameters: Ability to identify and engage antiship
missiles, aircraft, and other aerial threats;
Threshold: Classified;
Objective: Classified.
Performance parameters: Ability to identify and engage swarm boat
groups, surface ships, and periscopes (submarines);
Threshold: Classified;
Objective: Classified.
Sources: U.S. Navy (data); GAO (analysis and presentation).
[End of table]
Table 6: Critical Technical Parameters Relating to Dual Band Radar:
Critical technical parameters: Search and track multitask capability;
Description: Ability to search and track simultaneously;
Demonstrated? VSR --Future; MFR --Future.
Critical technical parameters: Firm track range (sensitivity);
Description: Distance from which an object's exact location, speed, and
trajectory can be identified definitively;
Demonstrated? VSR --Future; MFR --Yes.
Critical technical parameters: Clutter rejection;
Description: Ability to operate in a maritime environment and maintain
full functionality under good or bad weather conditions;
Demonstrated? VSR --Future; MFR --Yes.
Sources: U.S. Navy (data); GAO (analysis and presentation).
[End of table]
Progress of Engineering Development Model:
Testing and development of the multifunction radar is proceeding well.
There have been a number of design changes, including a power/cooling
system redesign that reduced weight. These changes will be validated in
land based tests with the volume search radar in August 2007. Tests of
the multifunction radar's clutter rejection capabilities and firm track
range, two critical technical parameters required for demonstration by
the August 2004 memorandum, have been proven in demonstrations with
realistic targets. In a simulated scenario, the multifunction radar has
demonstrated the ability to guide an Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile
against an inbound cruise missile. Testing of the radar's ability to
communicate with one of its own outbound missiles will take place in
2007, when the fully assembled dual band radar undergoes land-based
tests. A significant risk remaining is ensuring that the shape and
placement of the multifunction radar meets radar cross section
requirements.
Table 7: - Schedule of Key Events Relating to Dual Band Radar:
2004:
September-October: Multifunction radar tests for clutter rejection and
sensitivity;
2005:
September: Multifunction radar cross section tests;
2006:
February: Integration and test of volume search radar array;
February-May: Multifunction radar at sea tests;
May: Engineering development model "string" test for the volume search
radar;
June: Volume search radar array delivery;
2007 and beyond:
August: Dual band radar land-based tests; To be determined: continued
development of volume search radar to meet requirements.
Source: U.S. Navy.
[End of table]
The transmit/receive units, the individual radiating elements that are
the essence of the volume search radar, encountered difficulties when a
key component failed in testing. Officials believe they have identified
a solution to the problem, but a further design iteration is needed to
fully satisfy performance requirements for the engineering development
model. Additional iterations of design will be necessary before ship
installation.
The schedule for construction of the dual band radar is already
challenging, with the radar for the first DD(X) scheduled for placement
after the ship is already afloat. Additional delay in development of
the volume search radar could further endanger the schedule for ship
construction.
[End of section]
Enclosure III: Integrated Deckhouse and Apertures:
Summary:
Construction of the fire and shock test article, one of two test
articles for the integrated deckhouse, was postponed until the detailed
design and construction phase and will not be tested until after DD(X)
critical design review. The second article, designed to test radar
cross section and interference between antennas, is nearly complete and
will begin testing in May and June of this year.
Background:
Integrated deckhouse and apertures refers to the superstructure on the
deck of the ship and the openings in which radar, sensor, and
communication equipment are placed. A major focus of deckhouse design
is to reduce the ship's radar cross section signature. A separate
technical challenge, referred to as co-site interference, involves
placing apertures in precise locations to ensure the signals from the
multitude of antennas do not interfere with one another.
Table 8: Performance Parameters Relating to Integrated Deckhouse:
Performance parameters: Radar cross section --Needs to be reduced so
that enemy radar cannot easily identify the DD(X)[A];
Threshold: Classified;
Objective: Classified.
Performance parameters: Interoperability --Ensuring all systems within
the deckhouse work together without conflict[A];
Threshold: Classified;
Objective: Classified.
Performance parameters: Survivability --Deckhouse resilience to fire
and shock;
Threshold: Classified;
Objective: Classified.
Sources: U.S. Navy (data); GAO (analysis and presentation).
[A] Key performance parameter.
[End of table]
Table 9: Critical Technical Parameters Relating to Integrated
Deckhouse:
Critical technical parameters: Co-site interference;
Description: Ensuring operation of deckhouse antennas and equipment do
not interfere with one another;
Demonstrated? Future.
Critical technical parameters: Radar cross section reduction;
Description: The deckhouse will contribute to total ship radar cross
section reduction;
Demonstrated? Ongoing.
Sources: U.S. Navy (data); GAO (analysis and presentation).
[End of table]
Progress of Engineering Development Model:
The contractor, Northrop Grumman, is building two test articles to
fulfill requirements for the testing of the deckhouse. One is a fire
and shock test article that will be subjected to underwater explosions,
and the other is an integrated deckhouse article that will be tested
for radar cross section and antenna placement.
Northrop Grumman halted construction on the fire and shock test article
because of issues pertaining to design of the joints that hold panels
of composite material together. A contractor official has stated that
specifications required that no damage be experienced in testing, as
has been the case with composite structures in other programs. The Navy
decided that these specifications were too conservative as the rest of
the ship is not held to the same requirement. According to the
contractor, the Navy relaxed this specification. Construction of the
fire and shock test article has been further delayed because facilities
for shock testing are not available until 2006. In addition, further
time is needed to conduct analysis of composite properties regarding
issues such as structural strength, corrosion, toxicity of fumes when
composites catch fire, and ability to bind composites with the steel
hull. The program office states that the ability of the deckhouse
design to meet requirements will continue to be analyzed in support of
the critical design review. Testing of the fire and shock article is
now scheduled for the next contract period, after DD(X) critical design
review.
Table 10: Schedule of Key Events Relating to Integrated Deckhouse:
2004:
August: Begin antenna predelivery tests;
November: Begin fire and shock testing (postponed);
2005:
February: End antenna predelivery tests;
March: Shielding effectiveness tests;
April: Lightning- protection tests;
June: Co-site interference tests;
July: End fire and shock testing (postponed);
September: Radar cross section tests;
2006 and beyond:
August: Begin antenna pre-delivery;
November: Begin fire and shock testing (postponed).
Source: U.S. Navy.
[End of table]
Since May 2004, a series of changes involving equipment, antenna size,
and positioning have been made to the deckhouse, which has caused
changes in the placement of apertures. The integrated deckhouse test
article is now nearly complete as are preparations at the test range.
Tests of radar cross section, including all deckhouse antennas and the
multifunction radar (half of the dual band radar system), will begin in
May 2005. Co-site tests for interference will follow in June 2005.
The deckhouse has experienced some problems remaining within its
margins for weight. To reduce weight the program has made a number of
changes to the design including modifications to fragmentation
protection, and redesigned power and cooling systems for the radars and
other components. The program office states that the deckhouse is now
in compliance with its weight budget.
A contract official has indicated that lessons learned from production
of the test articles has reduced risk and validated processes.
[End of section]
Enclosure IV: Advanced Gun System:
Summary:
Tests performed for the advanced gun system in support of Milestone B
were completed with modeling of a virtual prototype and partially
validated with subsequent component tests. Two of three munition flight
tests were completed successfully. Final design of the advanced gun
system exceeds previous weight margins due to changes made to
facilitate ship construction.
Description:
The advanced gun system is a large caliber, unmanned gun system
designed to fire long-range projectiles in support of land attack
missions, such as strikes at specific targets or suppressing fire in
support of ground troops. The DD(X) design calls for two gun systems
with approximately 300 rounds in each magazine, with an additional 320
rounds in an auxiliary magazine. Because the gun system provides
supporting fire for land attack, a fundamental mission objective of the
DD(X), it needs to be able to quickly and accurately hit a substantial
number of land-based targets from a significant distance. The system
consists of the mount (the gun together with its housing and movement
mechanisms), a fully automated magazine, and a munition known as the
long range land attack projectile.
Table 11: Performance Parameters Relating to Advanced Gun System:
Performance parameters: Number of advanced gun systems[A];
Threshold: 2;
Objective: 2.
Performance parameters: Total ship advanced gun systems magazine
capacity[A];
Threshold: 600;
Objective: 1200.
Performance parameters: Ship personnel (with helicopter detachment)[A];
Threshold: 175;
Objective: 125.
Performance parameters: Gun ready --time required to execute a mission;
Threshold: 2.5 min;
Objective: 1 min.
Performance parameters: Maximum rate of fire --number of rounds per
minute;
Threshold: 10;
Objective: 12.
Performance parameters: Sustained rate of fire --rounds at maximum
rate;
Threshold: 300;
Objective: 600.
Performance parameters: Accuracy --distance of impact from target;
Threshold: Classified;
Objective: Classified.
Performance parameters: Range --distance in nautical miles munition can
travel;
Threshold: 63;
Objective: 100.
Performance parameters: Lethality --explosive power of munition;
Threshold: current 155mm;
Objective: current 155mm.
Sources: U.S. Navy (data); GAO (analysis and presentation).
[A] Key performance parameter:
[End of table]
Table 12: Critical Technical Parameters Relating to Advanced Gun
System:
Critical technical parameters: Pallet unloading rate (which
demonstrates gun ready time and rate of fire);
Description: Time required to unload pallet of munitions (8 munitions
per pallet);
Demonstrated? Yes.
Critical technical parameters: Projectile muzzle velocity;
Description: Speed at which the projectile exits the barrel;
Demonstrated? Yes.
Sources: U.S. Navy (data); GAO (analysis and presentation).
[End of table]
Progress of Engineering Development Model:
In order to complete Milestone B for DD(X), the advanced gun system was
required by the Under Secretary's memorandum of August 2004 to
demonstrate its required firing rate through modeling. In October 2004,
it did so by using a physics-based software model that includes the
software functionality for all major components of the advanced gun
system and incorporates the results of physical testing. Results met or
exceeded expectations for response time, rate of fire, sustained rate
of fire, range, and pallet unloading rate. The contractor has begun
verifying the results through testing of physical components. In April,
the magazine component of the advanced gun system successfully
completed factory acceptance testing by demonstrating its ability to
meet requirements and has been shipped to Dugway, Utah, for integration
into further land-based tests. Land-based tests will demonstrate the
entire firing sequence of the advanced gun system. These tests will not
demonstrate the ability of the gun system to communicate target
information to the munition or the ability to move the gun side to
side. The munition will not be tested with the gun until after ship
installation.
Table 13: Schedule of Key Events Relating to Advanced Gun System:
2004:
October: Virtual testing to meet DD(X) Milestone B criteria;
Second quarter: Component testing begins;
December: First munition guided flight test;
2005:
First quarter: Component testing ends;
April: Factory acceptance testing of the magazine;
January-February: Munition guided flight tests;
May: Factory acceptance testing of the mount;
May: Long-range land attack projectile preliminary design review;
July: Land-based testing of the mount and magazine;
April-September: Further guided flight tests of munition;
2006 and beyond:
To be determined: Munition firing from gun system.
Source: U.S. Navy.
[End of table]
The munition for advanced gun system, known as long-range land attack
projectile, has completed three flight tests at Point Mugu, California;
and has successfully demonstrated launch, tail fin deployment, canard
deployment, rocket motor ignition, global positioning system
acquisition, and some flight maneuvers. The first guided flight test
failed when the canards deployed improperly and controlled flight was
lost. The issue was identified, corrected, and successfully resolved in
later flight tests. The current schedule calls for completion of an
additional twelve flight tests by the end of September 2005. There is a
proposal to reduce the number of tests in this time period to four or
five but to continue to test requirements for all phases of flight
including distance. Information is incomplete about what details of
testing might be lost under this proposal.
Recently, the design of the advanced gun system was changed to support
ease of production for DD(X). The advanced gun system will now be
constructed as a single modular unit, transported to the shipyard, and
installed as a block. This redesign has added some weight which has
been accounted for in the current design.
[End of section]
Enclosure V: Peripheral Vertical Launch System:
Summary:
A demonstration to test the peripheral vertical launch system against
expected threats resulted in a dramatic destruction of the test article
that necessitated redesign and further testing. A second test
replicating the same conditions with the new design and representative
materials will be held in June 2005.
Description:
The peripheral vertical launch system consists of the missile launcher,
referred to as the advanced vertical launch system, and the enclosure
for the launcher, referred to as the peripheral vertical launch system.
The system is located on the sides of the ship to improve
survivability, rather than the more traditional central positioning.
The launcher is an evolutionary improvement on the existing design to
ease introduction of new missile types. The enclosure is a
revolutionary design that prevents damage by directing explosions away
from the ship.
Table 14: Performance Parameters Relating to Peripheral Vertical
Launch:
Performance parameters: Number of advanced vertical launch cells[A];
Threshold: 80;
Objective: 128.
Performance parameters: Survivability;
Threshold: Classified;
Objective: Classified.
Performance parameters: Launch time;
Threshold: Classified;
Objective: Classified.
Sources: U.S. Navy (data); GAO (analysis and presentation).
[A] Key performance parameter.
[End of table]
Table 15: Critical Technical Parameters Relating to Peripheral Vertical
Launch:
Critical technical parameters: Antipropagation wall impact velocity;
Description: The wall will not impact the cell canister of adjacent
stored missiles with velocity of greater than a certain number of
meters per second;
Demonstrated? Future.
Critical technical parameters: Blast overpressure;
Description: Blast pressure in the adjacent module shall be less than
the ordinance sensitivity threshold;
Demonstrated? Yes.
Critical technical parameters: Launcher response time;
Description: Time between mission request and launch;
Demonstrated? Yes.
Sources: U.S. Navy (data); GAO (analysis and presentation).
[End of table]
Progress of Engineering Development Model:
In May 2004, the program conducted a test to verify the design of the
peripheral vertical launch system enclosure by detonating a surrogate
of an enemy missile among the missiles the DD(X) is expected to carry.
The design operates by allowing the wall facing away from the interior
spaces of the ship to fragment first and release pressure. During the
test the walls intended to protect the ship and adjacent launchers from
explosion were pierced by shrapnel. The result was an immense explosion
that severely damaged the test article. While program officials believe
that the critical technical parameters were partially demonstrated in
the test, the amount of damage caused by shrapnel has led to a redesign
effort. Program officials are concerned that this shrapnel could cause
explosions in adjacent enclosures and have proposed adding material,
Kevlar or a similar material, and some additional steel bracing, to the
inside of the enclosures to prevent this. The new design has been
partially validated through component testing, and will be fully
demonstrated in June.
Table 16: Schedule of Key Events Relating to Peripheral Vertical
Launch:
2004:
May: Initial most credible detonation event test for enclosure;
2005:
April: Launcher factory acceptance testing;
May: Peripheral vertical launch system four cell test;
June: Repeat of detonation event test;
May: 8-cell full system test (postponed);
2006 and beyond:
To be determined: 8-cell full system test.
Source: U.S. Navy.
[End of table]
Although the new design of the peripheral vertical launch system calls
for Kevlar, which is in short supply, or a similar material for
ballistic protection, the contractor does not believe the construction
times will be affected. Officials have also stated that the weight
added by the redesign does not push the peripheral vertical launch
system beyond its margins.
According to a contractor official, scheduling of a new most credible
detonation event test will push a planned eight-cell test, which would
have demonstrated the ability of both the enclosure and the launcher to
survive an explosion, into the next phase of the contract. To mitigate
risk the program will perform a similar test with a four-cell test
article before the ship's critical design review.
[End of section]
Enclosure VI: Other Engineering Development Models:
Integrated Undersea Warfare:
Description:
The integrated undersea warfare system is used to detect mines and
submarines in the littorals and consists of medium and high frequency
arrays, towed arrays, and decision-making software to reduce workload.
The undersea warfare system is tested for three performance parameters
(manning, mine avoidance, and ability to attack submarines) by
demonstrating three critical technical parameters (detection and
classification of mines, angle of approach of mines, and detection and
classification of submarines). Tests for the demonstration of mine
warfare's critical technical parameters were scheduled for May;
submarine warfare tests were scheduled for June.
Progress:
* According to program officials, at-sea tests of algorithms for
antisubmarine warfare have been changed to laboratory testing due to a
lack of test ships.
* Significant advances in the automation of submarine detection and
tracking may be required to meet manpower goals.
* The portion of the sonar array used to detect mines experienced some
issues receiving sonar beams in recent testing. The program office
states that these issues have been resolved.
Table 17: Schedule of Key Events Relating to Integrated Undersea
Warfare:
2003:
November: Preliminary design review;
2004:
March: Critical design review;
December: Array interference tests at Seneca Lake;
2005:
May: At-sea tests for mine avoidance;
June: Lab tests for antisubmarine warfare.
Source: U.S. Navy.
[End of table]
Infrared Signature Mockups:
Description:
The DD(X) program seeks to reduce the heat signature of the ship using
material treatments on the deckhouse, passive air cooling for engine
exhaust, and a sheeting water system on the hull. The infrared
signature mockups support the ship's performance parameters for
survivability by demonstrating three critical technical parameters, all
of which relate to heat signatures of various parts of the ship.
Progress:
* The use of infrared materials to reduce heat signature has changed
due to design tradeoffs for performance, weight, and cost. Program
officials state that the operational requirements are still achievable
using the new design.
* Program officials have determined that further testing of exhaust
suppressors for the main turbine generator is no longer necessary.
Previously the program had tested the suppressors with a surrogate main
turbine engine.
* Sheeting water system for the hull has been deleted from the ship
design and replaced with an alternate system.
Table 18: Schedule of Key Events Relating to Infrared Signature
Mockups:
2003:
March: Preliminary design review;
2004:
March: Completion of at- sea materials testing;
March-April: At-sea panel tests;
October: Critical design review;
December: Design tests;
2005:
Third Quarter: Small exhaust suppressor testing (canceled due to
change in materials).
Source: U.S. Navy.
[End of table]
Hull Form:
Description:
DD(X) uses a radically new hull design to reduce the radar cross
section of the ship. Development also includes design of a new
propeller. The hull form development model supports ship performance
parameters for survivability, operations in various ocean environments,
and speed. Models are currently being tested for three critical
technical parameters: hull form resistance, efficiency of the
propeller, and capsize probability.
Progress:
* Development of software model used to predict hull form behavior is
continuing.
Table 19: Schedule of Key Events Relating to Hull Form:
2004:
December: Initial model tests;
September: Maneuvering tests;
2005:
February: Resistance, powering, and cavitation tests with design
propeller;
March: Sea keeping and loads tests;
July: Hull form scale model tests;
July: Critical design review;
2006 to Future:
To be determined.
Source: U.S. Navy.
[End of table]
Autonomic Fire Suppression System:
Description:
The autonomic fire suppression system utilizes new technologies such as
smart valves, flexible hosing, nozzles, sensors, and autonomic
operations to reduce the crew and time needed for damage control. This
system is vital for meeting performance parameters for ship
survivability and manning as measured by three critical technical
parameters: time for automatic reconfiguration of fire suppression
systems and the autonomic reduction of temperature in the primary and
adjacent damage areas. Testing for these critical technical parameters
was performed on two Navy test ships and has been successful.
Progress:
* An initial test aboard the ex-Peterson, a test ship, successfully
demonstrated the system's ability to detect damage and control fires.
* Tests aboard the ex-Shadwell, another test ship, are demonstrating
the same abilities for specific ship environments.
* Because the exact components used in testing aboard the ex-Shadwell
may not be the ones used in ship construction, Navy officials state
that it is unclear how the engineering development model will translate
into final ship design.
Table 20: Schedule of Events Relating to Autonomic Fire Suppression
System:
2003:
September: Preliminary design review;
2004:
January: Weapons effects testing on ex-Peterson;
September: Critical design review;
2005:
January-April: Testing for specific ship environments on ex-Shadwell.
Source: U.S. Navy.
[End of table]
Total Ship Computing Environment:
Description:
This engineering development model seeks to demonstrate a single
computing environment for all ship systems to speed command while
reducing manning. This development model consists primarily of
software, with program officials estimating that it will require a
total of 20 million lines of new and reused code. The system
contributes to manning, interoperability, and survivability performance
parameters and is measured by six critical technical parameters. These
include speed of data delivery, defense against information security
threats, the ability to both track and engage targets, contribution to
ship threat response times, and time required to recover after
equipment failure. The program office states that the ability of the
total ship computing environment to achieve these parameters was
demonstrated through testing of the second software release.
Progress:
* Two of seven software blocks released.
* Software production following disciplined development plan.
* Schedule has limited margin for correction of defects found in
testing.
Table 21: Schedule of Events Relating to Total Ship Computing
Environment:
2003:
September: Preliminary design review;
2004:
May: Critical design review;
June: Software release 1 certification;
2005:
March: Software release 2 certification;
May-September: Land-based tests;
September: Software release 3 certification.
Source: U.S. Navy.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Enclosure VII: Agency Comments:
OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE:
ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY AND LOGISTICS:
3000 DEFENSE PENTAGON:
WASHINGTON, DC 20301-3000:
JUN 13 2005:
Mr. Paul L. Francis:
Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Francis:
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report, "Progress of the DD(X)
Destroyer Program," dated May 23, 2005 (GAO Code 120403/GAO-05-752R).
The GAO report does not contain recommendations. The Department has no
formal comments on this draft report. However, the Department provided
technical corrections separately.
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft report.
Sincerely,
Signed for:
Glenn F. Lamartin:
Director:
Defense Systems:
[End of section]
(120403):
FOOTNOTES
[1] There is additional margin for weight in later phases of design
that allow for growth.
[2] Factory acceptance testing generally demonstrates the basic
performance of a component as specified by the contractor.
