Cruiser Modernization: Much more than a mid-life make-over

Wednesday, February 4th, 2009
Edward H. Lundquist explains – how and why – From the mess decks to the masthead, from the stem to the stern flap, USS Bunker Hill is receiving a capability-enhancing and life-extending “modernization” availability at BAE Systems Shipyard in San Diego.

The U.S. Navy currently has 22 Aegis guided missile cruisers (CGs) in the fleet. Commissioned in 1986, Bunker Hill is the oldest and has the honor of being the first to receive the full hull, mechanical and electrical (HM&E), and combat systems “cruiser modernization” overhaul.

Originally a class of 27 ships, the first five Ticonderoga-class CGs were retired prematurely because the cost of bringing them up to current standards was prohibitive. The first Aegis surface combatant, USS Ticonderoga, was commissioned in 1983, and decommissioned in 2004. The Cruiser Modernization program, however, will systematically upgrade the remaining ships to a better-than-new status, with state-of-the-art combat systems to meet and pace the emerging threat.

Think of how far computers have evolved in 22 years. The threats against own ship, the strike group being protected and other missions have also progressed. The new combat system benefits from “open architecture” which distinguishes the Advanced Capability Build 2008 (ACB08) software package. The ACB-08 software that will support the Bunker Hill’s Aegis system is “disassociated” from the hardware, and can refreshed and kept current more efficiently and rapidly.

“Modernization delivers this improved war fighting capability to the current fleet in order to pace the evolving and potential threats to international sea lanes and in support of the Joint Force,” says Rear Adm. Vic Guillory, USN, director for surface warfare on the Chief of Naval Operations staff.

The cruisers will receive a $220 million (per ship in FY 08 dollars) package, far less than the cost of a new combatant. “Modernizing our Aegis ships,” says Guillory, “is a cost effective and efficient path that supports a surface combatant force structure our Navy and this nation need for maritime security. Keeping these ships combat-relevant until the end of their 35-year service lives is critical to the Navy’s force structure requirements,” Guillory says. “This program is a key enabler in achieving our Navy’s goal of achieving a 313-ship Navy. In fact, 313 is the ‘floor,’ as more ships may be needed.”

Guillory is responsible for requirements and resources for surface warfare on the Chief of Naval Operations staff. He develops the requirements for future ships, but acknowledges that keeping the current ships combat-ready is also of great importance. “From a requirements perspective, the Navy has taken great care in determining the warfighting requirements for our cruisers and destroyers in the years ahead. Our analysis has crossed mission areas, looking at everything from the submarine threat to the latest in anti-ship cruise missile and the ballistic missile threats facing our nation,” Guillory says. “The result is a modernization plan that takes advantage of the promises of Open Architecture and will introduce new capabilities, in an evolutionary fashion, as technology and development brings them to maturity, allowing our Navy to pace the threat facing the Fleet over the extended service life of these ships.”

Later, the Navy’s 62 Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers will be modernized. New ships of this class are still being built, but the first was commissioned in 1991, so it is not too early to prepare for their modernization.

The first phase of Bunker Hill’s modernization availability was performed in dry dock. Props and screws were removed and refurbished while the hull was preserved and painted. A stern flap was installed to reduce fuel consumption. Improvements were made to watertight doors and portions of the hull and deckhouse were structurally strengthened. Topside changes include the replacement of the ship’s two gun mounts with the 5-inch/62 caliber gun, the newest in the fleet. The hurricane bow’s bulwark was cut back to trim weight. To better defend itself, Bunker Hill now has the Close-in Weapons System (CIWS) Block 1B, Evolved SeaSparrow Missile (ESSM) and the AN/SPQ-9B radar. The SPS-49 air search radar was removed, not only reducing topside weight and improving stability, but freeing up the radar equipment room to be used as fitness center for the crew.

The cruisers are having their waste heat boilers removed, and all steam systems are being converted to electric. This includes removal of all maintenance-intensive steam piping and valves. The Bunker Hill now has a reverse osmosis desalination plant, electric galley and laundry.

“There are three different waste heat boilers on the cruisers, heated by the gas turbines that provide hot water for ship services throughout the ship. Removing them eliminates the requirement to maintain proper boiler water and feed water chemistry and maintain of the steam systems,” says Rear Adm Jim McManamon, deputy commander for surface warfare, at Naval Sea Systems Command. “For fresh water, we replaced the steam evaporators with the electric reverse osmosis desalination plant.”

“From a requirements perspective, the Navy has taken great care in determining the warfighting requirements for our cruisers and destroyers in the years ahead. Our analysis has crossed mission areas, looking at everything from the submarine threat to the latest in anti-ship cruise missile and the ballistic missile threats facing our forces, friends and allies,” Guillory says. “The result is a modernization plan that takes advantage of the promises of open architecture and will introduce new capabilities, in an evolutionary fashion, as technology and development brings them to maturity, allowing our Navy to pace the threat facing the Fleet over the extended service life of these ships.”

Now out of dry-dock, the systems are being installed, energized and tested. A key milestone was recently achieved with “Aegis Light Off,” where the elements of the combat systems were successfully started up in sequential order.

Open Architecture

“In the old architecture, software was written specific for the hardware that it sat on, so any change in the combat system really required you to do a very extensive and intrusive modification to both software and hardware,” says Rear Adm. Terry Benedict, program executive officer for integrated warfare systems. “To truly get to the open architecture philosophy, the first thing you need to do is break the software from the hardware so that you can put both of them on a cycle for refresh that really allows you to take advantage of the technology improvements that happen naturally in industry, but also allows you to really take full advantage of new innovation within industry.”

Numerous upgrades are being made to the combat systems, including the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC), allowing the ship to share track information with other offboard sensors and fire weapons beyond the sensor range of the ship; integrated bridge systems and electronic navigation, a fiber-optic network for the ship, and new commercial-off-the-shelf computers deliver a ten-fold increase in processing power and network bandwidth, and greatly increased system memory, in about half the space.

“The Aegis fleet modernization program is key in our surface combatant vision of the Fleet in the first half of the 21st Century, says Guillory. “We cannot depend upon construction of new ships alone to achieve our fleet force structure. Modernization of our current surface combatants is essential. This is one of the building blocks of the Navy’s force structure in the years ahead. In a manner of speaking, it’s a certain piece of an uncertain future.”

PHOTO: USS Bunker Hill (CG 51), seen here a year ago in drydock in San Diego, is receiving the full cruiser modernization package. The one-year refit brings the oldest Aegis cruiser up to the most modern standard. Bunker Hill is now undergoing sea trials. Photo by Edward Lundquist.

About the author:

Edward Lundquist is a senior science advisor with Alion Science and Technology. He supports the U.S. Navy’s Surface Warfare Directorate.

The Port of Los Angeles: Busy, Secure and Green

Maritime Reporter

October 2009

By Edward Lundquist

http://maritimereporter.marinelink.com/page.aspx/200910/29/

Navy to Modernize Aging Aegis Cruisers 

By Edward Lundquist

National Defense Magazine

August 2003 

The U.S. Navy will upgrade 22 of its 27 Aegis cruisers (CG-52 through CG-73), in an effort to keep these ships combat-relevant until a new generation of surface warships can be designed and built.
The cruiser conversion program will extend the service life of each ship to 35 years through major combat systems upgrades and selective service life modernization, according to Cmdr. Jerry Hamel, a requirements officer on the Navy staff.
The conversion effort will enable the CG-47 class to participate in land attack, littoral undersea warfare, force protection and anti-air defense missions, including ballistic missile defense.
“We have to add new capabilities,” said Hamel. “At the same time, we have to reduce crew size and maintenance requirements.”
Cruiser conversion will affect CG-47 Baseline 2, 3 and 4 ships. The first five ships in the class, known as Baseline 1, will not receive the conversion. USS Ticonderoga, the lead ship of the class, is now 20 years old and will be decommissioned next year. USS Thomas S. Gates (CG-51) was commissioned in 1987. The first five ships of the class did not receive the vertical-launch system upgrade. The Navy plans to retire Baseline 1 in fiscal year 2006.
The first ship scheduled to undergo cruiser conversion is the USS Cape St. George (CG-71), with the work commencing in fiscal year 2006. The final ship will begin conversion in 2014.
The various upgrades to the cruisers are designed to enhance the combat capabilities gradually throughout their service lives. “Our analysis was modeled to pace the threat through 2025,” said Cmdr. Dave Matawitz, branch head for current ships in the Navy’s Surface Warfare directorate.
Cruiser conversion will provide both a computing technology and force structure bridge to future ships, Matawitz said.
There are varying capabilities between Baselines 2, 3 and 4. The cruiser conversion program will result in all 22 ships having a common baseline.
The core components of the combat systems cruiser conversion include:

The Aegis Baseline 7 Phase 1C computer program.
The Q-70 console installation for enhanced radar and computer displays.
The Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC).
Vertical Launch System (VLS) design modifications to support current and future missile capabilities including Standard missile SM-2 variants.
Evolved Sea Sparrow (ESSM) for improved capability against low altitude supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles.
Vertical launch antisubmarine rocket (VLA) and Tomahawk.
The Mark 34 gun weapons system, including the Mark 160 Mod 11 gun computer system and the 5-inch/62-caliber gun with Extended Range Guided Munition (ERGM).
The SPQ-9B radar.
The close-in weapon system (CIWS) Block 1B.
SQQ-89A(V)15 sonar suite (baselines 3 and 4 only) for enhanced littoral water performance.
The Shipboard Advanced Radar Target ID System (SARTIS).
These modifications will enhance the ship’s relevance in the areas of air dominance, land attack and anti-submarine warfare, and will improve force protection in the littoral warfare mission, said program officials.
Cruiser conversion will enhance survivability and decrease maintenance costs by incorporating a number of hull, mechanical and electrical ship alterations, based on commanders’ proposals.
The “all-electric modification” will eliminate waste heat boilers and associated equipment, replace steam-operated equipment with electric equipment—including laundry washers and dryers, galley kettles, dishwashers, lubrication and fuel oil heaters and potable water heaters with equivalent electrical equipment. It will replace flash type distilling plants with reverse osmosis units capable of treating potable water. The reverse osmosis units are easier to maintain, more reliable and do not create high temperatures in the work spaces, which reduces heat stress and improves shipboard quality of life, officials said.
“There will be significant weight reduction to improve ship stability and to enable growth for the ships’ additional service life,” said Lt. Cmdr. Eric Weilenman, a requirements officer in the current ships branch. “Hull and deckhouse strengthening modifications will address emerging problems associated with cracks caused by metal fatigue.”
In all, the program will help to sustain the Navy’s surface combatant force structure and will provide a bridge to the introduction of a future family of ships—such as the CG(X), scheduled for 2018. Conversion of the 22 ships will be completed by 2015.
A key component in the conversion effort will be the adoption of commercial-off-the-shelf computer systems. “With the introduction of a COTS based computing environment, we are moving away from baseline legacy systems and toward open architecture,” Matawitz said.
To incorporate advances in systems technology and reduce manpower requirements, the program will include so-called “SmartShip” enhancements, such as a wireless internal communications system, an integrated bridge system for automated piloting and a fiber-optic ship-wide local area network.
The Integrated Condition Assessment System will be used for the automated recording of maintenance data relating to the main propulsion, electric and auxiliary equipment. The Damage Control Quarters will provide real-time damage control information throughout the ship, the Fuel Control System will perform automated control of the ship’s fuel fill and transfer, and the Machinery Control System will automate the main propulsion and electrical plant control.
“These upgrades will enable the crew to work smarter and will provide a more efficient use of the crew’s time,” said Weilenman.
The Navy has a long history of executing ship improvement and conversion programs, said Weilenman. “Modernization programs are cost-effective alternatives to new construction during periods of budgetary constraints.”
During the 1950s and 1960s, the Navy converted multiple World War II era cruisers to incorporate the emerging Talos, Tartar and Terrier missile systems and serve as modern flagships. The Fleet Rehabilitation and Modernization program, which extended the useful life of World War II era ships, was initiated in 1960 to avoid what would otherwise have been the “block obsolescence” of the Navy’s destroyer fleet at the height of the Cold War. The New Threat Upgrade program enhanced the capabilities of the Navy’s guided missile cruiser and destroyer fleet during the 1980s.
Navy officials stress that cruiser conversion is needed to maintain the force structure until the CG(X) is introduced. Navy policy currently sets the effective service life of cruisers at 35 years for force structure planning purposes and ship design specifications.
The actual or historical service life of cruisers tends to be shorter, however, as enemy technology advances and hull, mechanical and electrical systems degrade. Consequently, the cost to operate and maintain the ship grows, as its ability to meet the future threat decreases.
“The decision to extend or accelerate the decommissioning of a ship class is thus based on the affordability of the platform in relation to the war-fighting capabilities that platform brings to the fleet,” Weilenman said. Without cruiser conversion, the Navy would likely be forced to decommission the class before it could introduce sufficient numbers of new ships to meet national security requirements.
The Navy’s future fleet of surface combatants will be a family of ships that will include the multi-mission DD(X) destroyer and the follow-on CG(X) cruiser, as well as the focused-mission Littoral Combat Ship (LCS).
The DDG-51 Aegis destroyers also are preparing for a mid-life upgrade.
“Cruiser conversion will extend the life of the remaining cruisers well into the 21st century, and provide the capability bridge to our future family of surface combatants,” said Capt. Ray Spicer, director of surface ships for the surface warfare branch of the Navy staff.

Edward H. Lundquist is the communications director of the Center for Security Strategies and Operations at Anteon Corporation. The company provides information systems and engineering services to the Defense Department and other government agencies.

 

Navy and Industry Pursuing New Power and Propulsion Methods

By Edward Lundquist

Alion Science and Technology

Advanced Materials, Manufacturing and Testing IAC, Rome, NY

The AMMTIAC Quarterly, Volume 4, Number 1
Powering the Future Force
New Power & Energy Technologies for the Warfighter
The Navy is testing new concepts in power generation, conversion,
and distribution to make ships more efficient, economic,
and combat-effective. Ships being developed in both the near
term and long term will have a variety of newly designed
propulsion systems depending on their size, mission, and ship
characteristics. This article discusses some key technologies on
the horizon.
ALL-ELECTRIC INTEGRATED PROPULSION
An integrated power system (IPS) is an all-electric architecture,
providing electric power to the total ship with an integrated
plant. IPS enables a ship’s electrical loads, such as pumps and lighting, to be
powered from the same electrical source as the
propulsion system (e.g., electric drive), eliminating
the need for separate power generation capabilities
for these loads.  To meet the increased power demands for new
sea-based weapon systems, next-generation surface
combatants, such as the DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class
of guided missile destroyers (see Figure 1), will feature
all-electric propulsion and an entirely new way of
distributing power for propulsion, ship service, and combat
capability. All-Electric Propulsion is a promising technology for
both naval and commercial marine applications. On the DDG
1000, power will be generated by two large gas turbine generators
and two smaller ones. By using efficient power management,
power is available to handle all of the electric loads throughout
the ship, including potential future power-hungry weapons such
as rail guns or directed energy weapons.
The combat value of an electric ship goes well beyond weapon
capability and capacity. There are significant efficiencies and
redundancies. At full power, DDG 1000 will achieve speeds up
to 30 knots. If one of the main turbines is lost, the plant can
be isolated and still achieve 27 knots. Since a warship usually
cruises at reduced power once it has arrived on station, normal
station-keeping can be accommodated with the two small
turbines to save fuel and reduce radiated noise. The power previously
trapped in the propulsion train can now be directed to
enhance combat capability and mission flexibility. At lower
speeds, Zumwalt has a surplus of power that can be made available
as needed. Further advantages include the elimination of maintenance-
intensive and hightemperature auxiliary steam systems, reduced noise
and vibration, and better fuel efficiency.
Among the major advantages of electric drive for naval ships is that the prime movers, whether gas
turbines or diesels, do not need to be located in a central machinery space or
mechanically connected to the propeller shaft as with
traditional propulsion systems.
Instead, the engines can be located anywhere
in the ship, distributed throughout the hull, and connected to
generators to supply power. This power can be fed to a central
bus that can be used for propulsion.
An all-electric integrated propulsion system enables more
design flexibility in terms of engine placement. For example,
the engines can be placed in the bow, stern, or even in the
superstructure for smaller engines. One of the advantages of
distributed power in a warship is survivability. If an engine incurs
damage or is incapacitated in one part of the ship, that part of
the distribution system can be isolated while power can still be
generated and distributed throughout the rest of the system. The
DDG 1000 will be powered by Rolls-Royce MT30 gas turbines,
which is based upon the Rolls-Royce “Trent” engine that powers
the Boeing 777 airliner. The aviation version of the engine has a
demonstrated reliability of 99.98%. The ‘marinized’ version of
the MT30 has 80% commonality with the Trent 800 but is
shock-mounted and has different blade coatings for operation in
a saltwater environment. This engine is also serving today aboard
the new Littoral Combat Ship USS Freedom (LCS 1). Zumwalt
will also have a smaller gas turbine, the Rolls-Royce 4500.
DDG 1000 power generators produce 4,160 volts alternating
current (AC), which is rectified to direct current (DC) that
allows ship service power distribution to be tailored to the ship’s
needs. There are three primary advantages to DC. First, DC uses
solid state power conversion that supplies loads which are converted
back to AC and is a cleaner way to supply power.
Secondly, many of the combat systems’ loads are DC. Finally, it
enables power to be shared and auctioned. DC enables uninterrupted
power even in the occurrence of a casualty.
The DDG 1000 will employ fixed pitch propellers.
Controllable pitch propellers and their associated complex
hydraulics are not required since the motor, and thus the shaft,
can be electrically reversed. But novel approaches to propulsion
are being considered for future combatants.
Other new naval ships are also adopting integrated electric
power systems. The next-generation CVN 21 aircraft carrier,
the USS Gerald Ford (see Figure 2), will have a newly designed
nuclear power plant and all-electric systems and propulsion.
The next amphibious assault ship, the USS Makin Island (LHA
6), will feature a combined gas turbine and electric propulsion
system.
The surface combatant IPS propulsion engineering development
model (EDM) for DDG 1000 is being tested at the Land-
Based Test Site (LBTS) at the Ships Systems Engineering
Station in Philadelphia. The test site has been used to evaluate
different configurations and motors. The test program validates
key system metrics such as torque, speed and power output, and
specific fuel consumption for the various configurations.
The Navy has tested the 18-megawatt (MW) advanced induction
motor (AIM), which will be the baseline for DDG 1000,
produced by Alstom at the LBTS. This is essentially the same
system installed on the Royal Navy’s new Type 45 destroyer, the
HMS Daring, which has just been commissioned. The IPS
features Integrated Fight through Power (IFTP), a fully automated
DC Zonal Electric Distribution System (DC ZEDS) that
provides flexible, reliable, high quality power to all shipboard
loads. Other configurations are also being tested. The IPS system
is fully automated with little operator intrusion. The testing at
the LBTS will validate that the DDG 1000 IPS will automatically
take appropriate corrective action if there is a malfunction or
casualty without the input of an operator.
Engineers at the LBTS have also tested a 36-megawatt permanent
magnet motor (PMM). PMM has greater power density
than the AIM and may be used in future ships.
Many studies were performed on different combinations of
gas turbines. The purpose was to avoid development of new
gas turbines that were not qualified and in service or on their way
into service.
Although there are advantages to distributing the power system
throughout a warship hull, the size and weight of the various
components has usually necessitated keeping the propulsion
equipment low in the ship for stability reasons. The DDG 1000
engineering plant layout is relatively conventional because of the
air intake, exhaust, and drive arrangement.
DRS Technologies and General Atomics Electromagnetic
Systems are developing a hybrid electric drive which permits a
smaller service gas turbine to power a permanent magnet motor
that can power the ship at slow or “loiter” speeds. Using a smaller
turbine can result in significant fuel savings. Furthermore, the
motor can be reversed to function as a generator when propulsion
gas turbines are online.
Overall, integrated electric drive offers ship designers and
operators a plant flexibility that does not exist with mechanical
drive systems. However, trade studies must be used to select the
appropriate power and propulsion system for each ship.
There are some ships with partial electric drive or hybrid electric
drive mechanical drive systems. These include the operational
Type 23 frigates; the European Multi-Mission Frigates
(FREMM), a joint program between France and Italy, which are
now in construction for France, Italy, Morocco and Greece; and
the amphibious assault ship USS Makin Island (LHD 8), now
undergoing trials.
Despite the advantages, there are not a lot of electric drive
warships in service. The new generation of electric ships has yet
to prove themselves. The DDG 1000, Royal Navy Type 45, and
T-AKE propositioning ships are examples of all-electric warships,
but they are still in the design phase, under construction, or
just entering service. Even though there is significant interest in
electric drive systems, there are only a relatively small number of
ships actually under construction and in operation.
SUPERCONDUCTING MOTORS
American Superconductor and Northrop Grumman have
recently tested a 36.5-megawatt high-temperature superconductor
(HTS) ship propulsion motor at the LBTS. The motor uses
HTS wire that can carry 150 times more power than copper
wire used in more conventional motors. The advantage is more
compact propulsion systems which have greater power density.
Superconducting wire can carry more current and generate
higher magnetic fields in very small areas and thus can result in
a significantly smaller motor. In other words, more power is
available from smaller, lighter motors. That means Navy ships
can carry more fuel and munitions and have more room for
crew’s quarters and weapon systems.
General Atomics’ (GA) superconducting DC homopolar
motor for propulsion applications is small and light compared
to traditional and superconducting AC motor systems. This
motor uses low-temperature supercooling that employs gaseous
helium to maintain the superconducting wire within the motor
at 5 Kelvin, which is almost absolute zero. Since some materials
are much better conductors at very cold temperatures, and with
virtually no electrical resistance supercooled conductors make
for much more efficient motors. A comparable high-temperature
supercooled system operates between 40 and 75 Kelvin,
depending upon the technology chosen. Refrigeration at higher
temperatures is easier, but the high-temperature superconducting
material is not as easy to produce and is much more expensive
than the superconducting niobium-titanium wire in the
low-temperature motor. Niobium-titanium wire is the most
widely used and available superconducting wire in world-wide
commercial applications.
GA has built a 5,000 horse-power (HP) motor which is
4.5 feet in diameter. This technology is slender, light, and fuelefficient
and can be more readily adapted to propulsion pod
applications.
Additionally, while superconducting AC motors have similar
costs to the superconducting DC motor, there is no need for
power inverters and the associated electronics to switch DC to AC.
Propulsion Pods
Most marine motor applications are located within the hull and
coupled to a shaft to turn a propeller or waterjet impeller. Electric
power can also be used for propellers or waterjets but can also
power propulsion pods, which can be located outside the hull.
Pods provide better maneuverability to ships entering and
leaving port or maintaining a precise station. With a significant
amount of propulsion equipment located outside the hull, more
room is available inside the ship for other purposes. Also, the signatures
could be mitigated if the propulsion system was isolated
inside the hull.
Cruise ship pod systems, such as “Mermaid” from RRAB (a
joint venture with Rolls-Royce AB and Alstom) and ABB’s
“Azipod” systems, can rotate 360 degrees and eliminate the need
for rudder assemblies.With a pod, the motor is in the pod, while
an azimuthing thruster has the motor located in the hull. The
Royal Navy’s Echo-class of survey vessels uses electric azimuthing
thrusters. Pods were considered for Zumwalt-class ships but
ruled out because of their size.
The US Navy has used Small Water Plane Area Twin Hull
(SWATH) ships for research and surveillance. These catamarans
have long and slender motors and other propulsion
equipment located in the submerged cylindrical buoyant hull
sections, but prime movers can be mounted above the waterline.
ThyssenKrupp’s Nordseewerke has built the SWATH
research vessel Planet for the German Federal Office of
Defense Technology and Procurement. Planet will assess new
propulsion technologies and evaluate the sea keeping characteristics
of the SWATH hull form. Its electric propulsion
enables it to test mine detection and undersea warfare systems
and countermeasures.
Siemens in Germany is finding improved power availability
and system responsiveness with high-temperature superconductors
for podded waterjets applications. Siemens is also
developing fuel cell technology for ship propulsion.
Waterjets
While not a new form of propulsion, waterjets have not been
used on larger ships until recently. They present some clear
advantages for warships. Waterjets deliver rapid acceleration and
can sustain high speeds. Waterjet-powered ships are extremely
maneuverable and can stop quickly. They offer simplicity. The
flow is constant in a single direction. Engine loading is constant,
regardless of vessel speed, and waterjets do not overload the
engines. There may be no need for a gearbox. Astern propulsion
is applied by means of deflectors that divert the jetstream forward.
Precise station keeping can be maintained with waterjets.
There are many advantages of waterjets. The most prominent
advantage is the shallow draft of the system. Waterjets do not
have appendages (such as propellers, shafts and struts, or rudders)
that extend below the waterline. This minimizes the risk of
damaging the propulsion gear from grounding or from hitting a
submerged object, and it also reduces the maintenance requirements.
As a result the boats can operate close to the shoreline,
land on a beach for deployment of troops or equipment, or even
run over submerged logs or sandbars without damaging the
propulsion equipment. In addition, floating debris (such as
ropes, nets, or weeds) does not pose much of a risk to the system
particularly at high speed. Even though these items may be
drawn into the jet unit at slow speeds, they are unlikely to cause
damage and can easily be removed.
Waterjets are reliable. Like propeller-driven ships, there is still
a shaft but it turns the pump impeller at a constant speed as
compared to a much larger propeller. Drive shafts, gear boxes,
and engines receive less stress, thus prolonging their service lives.
The entire propulsion system requires less maintenance.
Waterjets are more efficient at higher speeds, particularly in
multiple drive installations such as catamarans. With no underwater
appendages, there is no increase in hull resistance as speed
increases or more drives are added. Efficient operation can also
be achieved over a broader range of speeds compared to propellers.
Waterjets cannot overload an engine due to excess boat
weight, towing, or extreme seas because they operate independently
of the body of water under a boat.
A fast vessel needs a relatively higher amount of power than a
slow vessel, and waterjets can provide a relatively large amount of
power despite their relatively small size. Conventional propulsors
would require relatively large propeller diameters.
A clean hull design, free of appendages, delivers greater speed.
Drag resistance increases significantly as ship speed increases.
Therefore, the absence of appendages becomes increasingly
important as ship speed requirements increase.
The Office of Naval Research (ONR) uses an experimental
130-foot-long craft called the Advanced Electric Ship
Demonstrator (AESD) to test various waterjet-based propulsion
configurations at the Navy’s Acoustic Research Detachment at
Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho. ONR engineers achieved improved
efficiency and maneuverability with a smaller, lighter propulsion
system while reducing noise at the same time. Named Sea Jet (see
Figure 3), the craft is essentially a quarter-scale model of the
DDG-1000 destroyer. It has been used to test an AWJ-21 underwater
discharge waterjet from Rolls-Royce Naval Marine, Inc.,
to validate better propulsive efficiency, reduced acoustic signature,
less drag, and better speed as well as improved maneuverability
for future surface combatants by eliminating rudders,
shafts, and propeller struts.
Sea Jet has also been employed to demonstrate the General
Dynamics Electric Boat RIMJET propulsor, which is a podded
system that features a permanent magnet motor to power a
propeller in the rim, rather than the hub, of the pod. The system
uses sea water for coolant, which eliminates the typical
elaborate cooling system consisting of pumps, piping, and heat
exchangers.
ONR has also developed an Advanced Hull Form Inshore
Demonstrator (APHID) which is testing a complete electric
podded propulsion system. The Rim-Driven Propulsor Pod
(RPD) uses a Pulse-Width Modulated (PWM) motor drive system
mounted on the Hybrid Small Waterplane Area Craft
(HYSWAC). Called Sea Flyer, the HYSWAC is built from a
modified Navy Surface Effect Ship and uses a Vericor TF-40 gas
turbine prime mover. Sea Flyer features an underwater lifting
body ship that combines the high-speed capabilities of a hydrofoil
and the rough-water stability of a small waterplane area twin
hull (SWATH), so it delivers higher speed and improved stability
over comparably sized vessels.
Cost can be an initial disadvantage of waterjets. They are
expensive to purchase and maintain. Waterjets are made from
costly stainless steel, which is more expensive than other propulsors
that are typically made from copper alloys. However, waterjet
lifecycle costs are relatively lower. Waterjets are less prone to
impact damage, and reduced engine stress results in less engine
maintenance and longer engine life.
The Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) will employ waterjets.
Waterjets were chosen for LCS to provide high speeds in shallow
waters, where the LCS will operate to combat asymmetric antiaccess
threats in the littoral regions of the world. Two variants
of LCS are being built. Lockheed Martin has delivered the
USS Freedom (see Figure 4), a semi-planing monohull design
built at Marinette Marine in Wisconsin. General Dynamics is
building a trimaran, the USS Independence, at Austal USA in
Mobile, Alabama. Both will have diesels and gas turbines, and
both will employ waterjets. The General Dynamics LCS has four
steering and reversing waterjets, while the Lockheed Martin LCS
has two steering and reversing and two booster jets. Both ships
displace about 3,000 tons and up to 4,000 tons fully loaded.
This will make the two LCS combatants the largest naval waterjet-
powered warships.
While the two versions have taken different naval architectural
approaches to the mission, both “seaframes” will carry mission
modules that can be reconfigured to adapt to each ship’s combat
mission assignment.
USS Freedom is powered by two Rolls-Royce MT30 36 MW
gas turbines and two Fairbanks Morse Colt-Pielstick 16PA6B
STC diesels. The seaframe is based on the Fincantieri-built,
Donald Blount-designed high-speed yacht Destriero, which
holds the record for the fastest transatlantic crossing (60 knots).
The 378-foot Freedom has a steel hull with aluminum superstructure.
The two 36 MW gas turbines and two diesel engines
power four large Rolls-Royce Kamewa waterjets. Four Isotta
Fraschini Model V1708 ship service diesel generator sets provide
auxiliary power.
USS Independence, the slender stabilized trimaran monohull
built by the General Dynamics team, has an overall length of
418 feet, maximum beam of 93 feet, and full load displacement
of 2,637 tons. The seaframe is based on Austal’s design for the
Benchijigua Express passenger and car ferry. Two General
Electric LM2500 22 MW gas turbines and two MTU
20V8000M90 9100 kW diesel engines are the prime movers,
powering four large steering and reversing Wärtsilä-Lips 2 X
LJ160E and 2 X LJ150E waterjets. With all propulsion flat out,
the Wärtsilä-Lips waterjets together expel roughly 27,000 gallons
of seawater per second exiting from the jet nozzles at a speed
around 90 mph. The trimaran variant built by General
Dynamics will also have a retractable azimuth thruster.
CONCLUSION
One design is not optimum for all situations. Cruise ships with
large portions of their itineraries at low power benefit from electric
drive. Fast ferries, which go to full throttle as soon as they
clear the breakwater and remain at full throttle until they reach
the next port, would be at a disadvantage with electric drive.
There are advantages to a mechanical drive system. Mechanical
drive systems are more efficient compared to electric drive systems
in terms of their ability to transmit energy from the prime
mover to the propulsor. For example, the mechanical drive is
estimated to transmit approximately 98% of the energy from the
prime mover output shaft to the propulsor. The electric drive is
estimated to transmit between 91% and 93%.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank Mike Worley, Vice President
of Naval Marine Programs for Rolls-Royce North America;
Mike Collins, former Program Manager for Integrated Power
Systems with Program Executive Office–Ships (PEO Ships);
Read Tuddenham, General Electric’s Manager of Integrated
Propulsion Systems and New Applications; Michael Reed,
Senior Vice President for Advanced Technology with General
Atomics Group; Tony Kean of HamiltonJet, Christchurch, New
Zealand; and Marit Holmlund-Sund of Wärtsilä.
Captain Edward H. Lundquist, US Navy (Ret.), is a Senior Science Advisor with Alion Science and Technology, Washington, DC. He is a senior-level communications professional with more than 24 years of public affairs, public relations, and corporate communications experience in military, private association, and corporate service. During his 24-year naval career, Mr. Lundquist qualified as a Surface Warfare Officer and later served as a Public Affairs Officer. He retired from active duty in 2000. He currently supports the Director for Surface Warfare on the staff of the Chief of Naval Operations. Lundquist currently is member of the executive committee for the Surface Navy Association, and serves as vice president of the Greater Washington Chapter. He is an Accredited Business Communicator (ABC) and the vice chair of the International Association of Business Communicators Accreditation Council. Lundquist is a graduate of Marquette University in Milwaukee,Wisconsin and holds a master’s degree in journalism and public affairs from the American University inWashington, DC. He writes frequently for publications including Armed Forces Journal, Unmanned Systems, Naval Forces, Warships International, Maritime Reporter, and others.

http://wstiac.alionscience.com/pdf/WQV9N1_ART04.pdf 

Leaders tell us that we have to change. Every senior leader in Washington is proclaiming that we are in a time of unprecedented change. Everything we do must be transformational. But transformation means different things to different people. For some stakeholders, things aren’t changing fast enough. For others, everything is changing too fast. Programs and projects are being returned to sender because they are not sufficiently transformational.

One Navy admiral acknowledged the misuse of the trendy term. “If it works, then it’s transformational. If it doesn’t, then it’s not.” One former senior Navy leader tells the story of calling his IT staff together and asking them for their top transformational priorities. At the next staff meeting, he asked how their prioritized transformational goals were coming, and he received nods all around. But at the following meeting, he was chagrined to find that his staff was starting to formulate excuses why they couldn’t transform.

Should transformation be the real goal? Is it an end in itself? Must an organization change for the sake of transformation? Or transform for the sake of change? Is it right to ask our managers to declare what they are going to do to be transformational, or should leaders explain and get consensus about the situation or environment and work with managers to find innovative ways to get where the organization needs to go?

Ned Barnhold, chairman, president and CEO of Agilent Technologies in Palo Alto, Calif., speaking to the International Association of Business Communicators in Toronto, where he received IABC’s 2003 Excellence in Communication Leadership Award, said there are three critical roles for leaders. The first, he said, is setting the direction and vision for the organization. “That’s relatively straightforward and easy to do during good times, but tough to do during rough times. It’s really important in tough times that people know where you’re headed and what you’re trying to accomplish, and what the company is going to look like when you come out of the difficult period that you’re in,” Barnhold said. “The second critical role that leaders play is in recruiting the team and developing the leadership. The third is in creating the environment where everyone around the company knows what the job is and how their contributions align with the overall success and goals of the company.”

According to Barnhold, communication plays an important role with every one of those three roles of leadership. “In the case of communicating our vision, our strategy, I think communication plays an essential role not only to make sure that everyone knows where we’re headed as a company, but also enthusiastically endorses that and embraces it. In terms of identifying the top leadership and developing leaders in the company, I think the members of the communication team have played a role in helping all of the leaders around the company be better communicators. I expect every leader at all levels to be a communicator, to communicate effectively in their organization. And then finally, in terms of creating environment, there’s an important role that communication can play in helping shape the culture and values of the firm, as well as making sure we have goal alignment across the company,” he said.

A vision, Barnhold said, must rest upon a solid foundation of company values.

As senior leaders, it is incumbent upon us to develop and articulate a vision of unity and respect within our organizations, built upon a foundation of core values. The Navy has such core values, and Navy men and women know what they are, what they mean and how these core values must be a part of our daily Navy lives.

Why transform? Do people change simply because we want to? Or because we have to? Do we change because our leaders are telling us to change, or because the environment requires it, or the “customer” is insisting on it?

Organizations don’t really change. It is the people within the organization who change. And people usually do not change unless there is a reason. In business today, managers are asking workers to change. But the reason employees need to change is because the customer demands it, not because management directs it. In the military context, the customer is really the threat, or the operational realities (some of which remain fairly constant, and some that change frequently). The Tailhook Association, for example, has changed. Forces outside the organization forced it to change, but it was the people from within who made it so. Change, says Roger D’Aprix in his book, “Communicating for Change,” is “rooted in the marketplace.” He continues, “If the customer insists on change, we have no alternative. To ignore the customer’s demands is to make the business irrelevant and eventually insolvent.”

Awareness, understanding and conviction

As it is a leader’s duty to have a vision for his organization, and that vision should be driven by the changing environment as defined by the customer, so that vision should be a description of a desired end state — an outcome to work toward.

The leader must share that vision with his people to make people aware of the vision, to help them understand that vision, and to have the people believe in and want that outcome to be a reality. The leader must communicate the vision through clear and consistent effective communications. This cannot be accomplished by a single memo, a speech to the workers on the shop floor, or a notice in the company newsletter or the “plan of the day.” One doesn’t put out an idea, a concept or a vision just one time and expect that everyone will be aware of it, understand it and believe it. Awareness and understanding require a consistent message, frequently communicated with clarity and impact, and making sure that message is being received and understood. Barnhold believes that people in the company want to be communicated with the same way that he does. “They want honest, direct, prompt, consistent, open communications. I think that’s at the heart of everything that we do. We reinforce that over and over again across the company. I believe that the whole communications process is a very interactive process. There’s a lot of feedback, a lot of listening that has to go on. Not only to understand the messages you need to be communicating, but also how those messages are being received, and you can tune your messages to make sure you’re more effective. I also believe that communication and the messages ultimately have to be owned by the leadership team.”

The vision must be shared and communicated using all the tools available to the leader. Through effective communication, the target audience will become aware of the vision. Then, through continued effective communication, the target audience will begin to understand the message. If the communication effort supporting the vision is effective, then eventually the target audience will believe it. Awareness and understanding are cognitive, but belief is emotional. When people believe in the vision, they will act so as to achieve it, and will move in the direction of that vision on their own volition because they believe it is the right thing to do, without being told what to do.

The leader will have succeeded when people come to see the leader’s vision as their own, that they “ardently desire” what it is that the leader desires. Here’s where communicating the values comes in. If a leader can communicate the values of the organization so that the work force embraces those values, then the work force will do the right things for the right reasons, without being directed each step of the way.

People are smart. Employees are very bright and dedicated to the customer. They want to succeed. If they are aware of how the customers’ needs are changing and understand the implications of the changes that affect the customers, then they can see how the organization of which they are a part needs to adapt to meet the changing or growing needs of the marketplace. The only way to discourage people from backward glances, warns D’Aprix, is educating employees to marketplace realities. In the context of the Navy, our people must be made aware and understand the changing strategic and tactical realities.

“You have to communicate the ‘why.’ That’s the key element. People have to understand why the status quo is so unacceptable,” Vice Adm. Harry Ulrich said. “Then you have to set the right conditions for people to be able bring about change.”

Transformation is the process whereby the Defense Department is overhauling the U.S. military and defense establishment to enable it to counter 21st-century threats most effectively. Transformation is about new ways of thinking, fighting and organizing the department and its operations — as well as about acquiring new system capabilities. Employees are concerned about change, to be sure. Inertia is a powerful force of nature. Many fight change with cynicism, others ambivalence. Some will do all they can do to thwart change and preserve the status quo, if only until they can execute their exit strategy. Some, sadly, cannot change. They are too entrenched in the old ways.

“One of the things I learned a long time ago is putting yourself in the place of the audience’s shoes,” Barnhold said. “I think it’s really important to think about what are these messages you’re delivering and what are the important questions and issues that the recipient is going to have. I think that’s something I learned — I spent a lot of my career in marketing, and the importance of putting yourself in the customers’ [shoes] is the exact same thing, whether you’re talking to shareholders or whether you’re talking to employees. Put yourself in the other’s shoes. You can never over-communicate.

“Just when you are getting sick of your message, your people are just beginning to get it. We spend a lot of time making sure everyone understands the objectives, goals and priorities of the organization,” he said.

Navy men and women have been bombarded with “flavor of the month” management programs. Where is “Management by Objective,” “Total Quality Leadership” or “Business Process Engineering” now?

Do we really need to transform?

Retired Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni, speaking at the U.S. Marine Corps Association and Naval Institute Forum in September 2003, said, “The military does a damn good job of killing people and breaking things. And we can sit here and design a better rifle squad, build a better fighter, a better ship, a better tank. And we’re so far ahead of any potential enemy right now in those kinds of technological areas, in the areas of expertise, of quality of leadership, and all the things that make military units great on the battlefield, that you wonder why we keep busting brain cells wondering how to continually do it better, or to transform into something else.

“I’m for transformation, if you define it as finding better, remarkable ways to tap into technology, into our own brain power, into our training and education, creative ways of redesigning our organization to make our military even more efficient, more powerful on the battlefield. But that is not the problem and it hasn’t been.”

Maybe we need less “transformation,” and more leadership and communication, in the words of Adm. King, “to get people to ardently desire what the leader wants them to do.”

When people are aware and understand where the organization is going, and why; when they understand their role, and why their contribution is vitally important; when they have the assets, resources, training and direction they need; when they are truly empowered, then they will do the right things for the right reasons and the right times. And you can follow your people to achieve your vision.

The challenge for leadership is to see where the organization needs to go, and why. Leadership needs to communicate that vision to the employees with sound and rational reasoning, and communicate it so that the employees will ardently want to move the organization, transform it if need be, from where it is today to what it needs to be to serve the customers best. Then we won’t need to tell people what to do. They’ll know. They’ll believe it. And they’ll do it without being pushed because they believe it’s the right thing to do.

Maybe our leaders need to transform themselves.

Words without meaning

Simply communicating core values is not enough. One major company had these values emblazoned upon its Web site:

Respect: We treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves. We do not tolerate abusive or disrespectful treatment. Ruthlessness, callousness and arrogance don’t belong here.

Integrity: We work with customers and prospects openly, honestly and sincerely. When we say we will do something, we will do it; when we say we cannot or will not do something, then we won’t do it.

Communication: We have an obligation to communicate. Here, we take the time to talk with one another, and to listen. We believe that information is meant to move and that information moves people.

Excellence: We are satisfied with nothing less than the very best in everything we do. We will continue to raise the bar for everyone. The great fun here will be for all of us to discover just how good we can really be.

The company? Enron. Proclaiming values is not enough. Leaders must live by them.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/05/2655503/

FROM BAINBRIDGE TO ARLEIGH BURKE
By EDWARD H. LUNDQUIST
U.S. Navy celebrates the centennial of its destroyer force

Sea Power magazine

Navy League of the United States

September 2002

From Bainbridge to Arleigh Burke–A Century of Destroyers By EDWARD H. LUNDQUIST Capt. Edward H. Lundquist, USN (Ret.), is a communications director for Anteon Corporation's Center for Security, Strategies, and Operations. A surface warfare officer and public affairs specialist during his Navy career, he served aboard the destroyer USS Cochrane. Sailors are on watch today aboard U.S. Navy destroyers underway on the oceans of the world, just as they have been for the last century. The destroyer is the ship that a present-day John Paul Jones would appreciate when he wants to go into “harm's way”–fast, agile, lethal, and versatile. All U.S. Navy destroyers have shared these characteristics since the first of its type, the USS Bainbridge (DD 1), led the way 100 years ago. Necessity was again the mother of invention–the Navy needed a ship able to destroy the deadly steam-powered torpedo boats which, at the beginning of the 20th century, posed a major threat to their much larger contemporaries in the surface navies of the world. Destroyers have been involved in nearly every naval conflict during the past century. They have been designed for a wide variety of warfare missions, and have served in virtually every navy of consequence. The capable multimission destroyer continues to serve with distinction around the world. It is not just the destroyer's sleek hull form–crowded with weapons and other instruments of naval warfare–but also the men and women who crew them that have made the ship so unique. Destroyer Sailors are a special breed, quick to learn new tasks, self-reliant, adaptable to almost any situation, and–judging from the Navy's battle histories, ready for action when “general quarters” is ordered. Sailors, authors, and pundits would eventually devise their own shorthand descriptions and pet names for the destroyers as they captured the public's imagination: Tin cans. Small boys. Greyhounds of the sea. Over the decades, destroyers have been taking the fight to submarines, surface ships, aircraft, missiles, and targets ashore. Smaller variants fought as early warning “pickets” when Japanese kamikazes infested the skies of the Pacific Ocean during World War II; they also served as fast amphibious troop transports, and countered mines at sea. The destroyer is truly a multimission surface combatant, although some purpose-built classes have been more expert at certain missions than at others. But perhaps their greatest value to fleet commanders through the years has been the fact that there have been so many of them–i.e., because of their relatively small size (and, therefore, relatively low cost) they can be, and usually have been, built in large numbers. “Quantity,” Josef Stalin once said, “has a quality all its own.” U.S. shipyards turned out destroyers by the hundreds to meet the German U-boat threat during World War I, and industry again mass-produced destroyers and destroyer escorts during World War II. Today's modern Spruance-class destroyers and Arleigh Burke-class Aegis guided-missile destroyers possess formidable warfighting capabilities unimaginable to Sailors of those eras. Purpose-Built Ships Commissioned in 1902, the Bainbridge was designed to counter the growing threat posed by the swarms of steam-powered torpedo boats that, taking advantage of their small size and high speed, were able to streak suddenly toward larger capital ships in coastal waters and wreak havoc with their torpedoes. The Bainbridge and her eight sister ships were built as torpedo boat destroyers. The first several classes of destroyers, in fact, resembled larger versions of the torpedo boats that they were designed to sink. The Bainbridge displaced approximately 450 tons and was about 250 feet long. She was designed to be seaworthy and fast–the steam generated by her four coal-fired boilers turned three screws to move her through the water at a speed in excess of 20 knots. She was armed with two 3-inch guns, two rapid-fire six-pounders, and a pair of 18-inch torpedo tubes. (Torpedoes were the weapon of choice at that time for attacking enemy capital ships.) The success of the first destroyers led to a call for follow-on ships. As would happen in every subsequent class of destroyers, naval architects had to balance many competing design factors and performance requirements–the right mix of weapons, size, speed, range, and crew size. By 1910, destroyers were being used to protect the more heavily armored battle fleet from attack. Shifting from coal to fuel oil increased their endurance, 4-inch guns replaced the 3-inch guns, and 21-inch torpedoes replaced the earlier 18-inch torpedoes. (Torpedoes were still considered the destroyer's principal armament for their primary mission.) These early destroyers proved their value as a scouting force during the days before the advent of sea-based aviation, striking the right balance between defensive and offensive capabilities. When World War I began, the U.S. Navy was building destroyers designed to attain speeds of 30 knots or more while carrying a full weapons load and fueled to capacity. Their relatively inexpensive and uncomplicated design allowed a large number of ships to be built quickly in what later would be known as “series construction.” Destroyers became the most effective escort for open-ocean convoys carrying much-needed supplies to U.S. allies in Europe. The Great War When the United States entered World War I, it faced a severe shortage of smaller ships suitable for antisubmarine warfare (ASW). The Navy ordered 111 “four-stack” destroyers of the Wickes class and 156 ships of the Clemson class to protect its convoys from German U-boats. These “flushdeck” 1,100-ton destroyers were built with several variations in armament, fuel capacity, propulsion, and hull form. Many of the destroyers ordered or laid down during World War I were not finished by the armistice of 11 November 1918. Some were completed after war's end, but not all. In any event, almost all of the 1,100-tonners soon found themselves in “mothballs” after the conflict. New motor torpedo boats continued to evolve in speed, and in combat capabilities, during the years prior to World War II. However, enemy submarines and long-range aircraft were by that time emerging as much greater threats to warships and merchant ships alike. Following the fall of France in July 1940, the United States faced the grim prospect that Nazi Germany might also soon defeat Great Britain as well and, partly for that reason, transferred 50 of its then-obsolete World War I-era flushdeck destroyers to the Royal Navy in exchange for 99-year leases of several British bases in the Western Hemisphere. These “four-pipers,” as they also were called, were rugged seaworthy vessels, and they were in plentiful supply. Many were recommissioned into the U.S. Navy for coastal patrol or Atlantic convoy escort duty–most of them fitted with such weapons and then-transformational “high-tech” systems as new 3-inch/50-caliber guns, sonar, high-frequency radio-detection gear, and depth-charge racks and “Y-gun” depth-charge throwers. Dozens of other World War I destroyers saw service during World War II after being converted to serve as light minelayers, high-speed minesweepers, seaplane tenders, and high-speed transports. A Two-Ocean War Despite the severe funding restrictions of the Depression era, the Navy had not been standing still–but had, in fact, developed several new classes of destroyers significantly more capable than their predecessors. Months before Germany's declaration of war on the United States following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, these ships were already hard at work escorting Atlantic convoys bound for Great Britain as part of the greatly increased Anglo-American military cooperation developed by two “former naval persons”–U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill. When the United States entered the war, the Navy was poised to begin construction of even more capable destroyers–much larger and more heavily armed than their World War I and prewar predecessors. The destroyer USS Fletcher (DD 445), commissioned in June 1942, displaced 2,700 tons when combat-loaded, and was fitted with a four-boiler propulsion plant that developed 60,000 shaft horsepower and delivered 36.5 knots. The Fletcher-class ships mounted five 5-inch/38-caliber guns in single mounts that could be used against shore, air, or surface targets, three twin 40mm Bofors heavy antiaircraft (AA) gun mounts, and a varying mix of 20mm Oerlikon automatic AA guns. True to their destroyer heritage, the Fletchers also were equipped with two banks of five 21-inch torpedo tubes. Where ships of the Wickes and Clemson classes were manned by crews numbering about 100 officers and men, though, the 365-foot Fletcher-class ships had a complement of 365 men. These much bigger destroyers were well suited for combat in the great ocean expanses of the Pacific War and the long-range island-hopping campaign that would prove the key to victory over Imperial Japan. U.S. wartime construction included the mass production of 175 Fletcher-class ships, as well as 70 Allen M. Sumner-class and 93 Gearing-class destroyers. Yet, for a Navy fighting a two-ocean war, the versatile destroyers were still in short supply–a repetition of the Navy's experience during World War I. More antisubmarine escorts were needed, a problem that led to the design of the destroyer escort–the ubiquitous “DE”: a smaller, slower, and more specialized ship that, like the original destroyers, could be built both quickly and in large numbers. Because they were not intended to steam in company with the fleet's fast carriers or modern battleships, the DEs were fitted with smaller and less powerful engineering plants and carried fewer weapons. They also required only about half the crew of a Fletcher-class destroyer–183 officers and men. The U.S. industrial capacity to produce steam-turbine engines and associated reduction gears was committed primarily to larger ships, so most DEs were equipped with diesel engines and turboelectric plants; the somewhat similar frigates, or PFs, built during the war (to a British design) were fitted with reciprocating steam plants. The Navy had to look beyond traditional U.S. shipyards to build the DEs and for that reason turned to other, smaller shipyards, including several on the Great Lakes and along the nation's inland waterways. In addition to their indispensable service as convoy escorts, destroyers joined new hunter-killer teams composed of land-based aircraft, escort carriers, and surface warships organized to seek out and destroy German U-boats in the North and South Atlantic. In the Pacific, the destroyers and their smaller cousins slugged it out ship to ship with their Japanese foes in a protracted campaign that culminated with the epic naval battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944. Antiair protection, important at the outbreak of World War II, became a paramount combat capability as the war progressed, especially when Japanese pilots became desperate to the point of suicide. Destroyers and escorts were fitted with additional 40-mm and 20-mm guns as fast as they could be produced and installed. The furious and concentrated barrage of impact- and proximity-fuzed shells that a surface formation could put in the sky exacted a heavy toll of attackers; nevertheless, the kamikaze pilots often overwhelmed defending U.S. ships and aircraft–with devastating results. Naval gunfire support for U.S. Army and Marine Corps amphibious landings–which ranged across the globe from North Africa to Sicily, Anzio, and Normandy in Europe to Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa in the Pacific–often spelled the difference between life and death for U.S. and allied ground forces. For many imperiled soldiers and Marines, the sight of a destroyer pulling to within a few hundred yards of a contested beach to add its firepower to the fight was one that would last a lifetime. Destroyers again proved their worth during the Korean War–and on the numerous other occasions when the Cold War flashed hot. In addition to the destroyer force's new weapons for traditional missions, there were new sensors, particularly advanced sonar and radar systems, which made destroyers the indispensable eyes and ears of the fleet. These innovations would shape the next generation of destroyer designs. The postwar threats posed by high-speed aircraft, missiles, and fast submarines called for new tactics, systems, and weapons–and new ships specifically designed to carry those systems and weapons and employ them with maximum effectiveness. The Missile Age New carrier task forces, formed into so-called hunter-killer (HUK) groups, continued to evolve, capitalizing on their earlier successes in the U-boat war. Destroyers armed with new longer-range sonars, more effective and more lethal ASW torpedoes, and forward-throwing depth-charge projectors soon became integral components of the HUKs–specially outfitted to find and attack enemy submarines. To attack an enemy submarine from standoff range required launching a torpedo into the water far from the prey. The antisubmarine rocket, or ASROC, could boost a torpedo (or nuclear-armed depth bomb) to a range of five miles, about the maximum range of the new SQS-23 sonars then entering service with the fleet. A Drone Antisubmarine Helicopter (DASH) also was developed to carry a torpedo to even greater ranges. The Navy experimented with the concept of a destroyer leader (DL) to serve as a flagship for HUK groups. The first was the USS Norfolk (DL 1), based on a light-cruiser hull and the first to mount the ASROC system. Ships of the Mitscher (DL 2) class that followed were slated to receive two new weapons–the “Weapon Able” (later Alpha) ASW launcher and the 3-inch/70-caliber gun–to counter the threat from diesel submarines and subsonic aircraft. As the Navy worked to perfect these new systems, enemy threats evolved, and so did the weapons to counter them. The Mitscher-class ships eventually were fitted with the 3-inch/50-caliber and 5-inch/54-caliber guns that became fleet standards. The Forrest Sherman class of ASW destroyers joined the fleet in the mid-1950s, built with weight-saving aluminum superstructures. They eventually received ASW upgrades or guided-missile conversions and served into the 1980s, when the last 18 ships in the class were decommissioned. To shoot down enemy aircraft, the Navy developed three new antiair warfare (AAW) missile systems during the Cold War: Talos, Terrier, and Tartar. The Talos and Terrier were too large to be carried by destroyers. However, the Navy found that the Tartar (direct predecessor of the modern medium-range Standard missile) system was a good fit for the ship and began building new guided- missile destroyers (DDGs) that were fast enough to keep up with the carrier task forces. The result was the 23 ships of the Charles F. Adams (DDG 2) class. Missile systems require large magazines and air-search radars, as well as more capable fire-control systems. The Charles F. Adams-class DDGs, fitted with a pair of 5-inch/54-caliber guns and a Tartar missile system, were built to counter the air threat. Other destroyer defensive systems also were developed, including the Basic Point Defense Missile System (BPDMS), the NATO Sea Sparrow AAW missile, and the rapid-fire Vulcan Phalanx Close-In Weapons System (CIWS). Faced with continuing reliability problems with its Terrier missile system during the 1960s, the Navy took the first steps toward the development of the potent Aegis weapon system and its Standard missile. The nuclear-powered guided-missile destroyer leader USS Bainbridge (DLGN 25), commissioned in 1962 and reclassified in 1975 as a guided-missile cruiser (CGN 25), was the first–and only–nuclear-powered destroyer. She served for nearly 34 years, and posed a truly formidable threat to enemy targets–namely, the 80 Terrier (later Standard) missiles she carried. She also was armed with four twin-mount 3-inch/50-caliber guns, Harpoon antiship cruise missiles, ASROC, and antisubmarine torpedoes. Postwar destroyer escorts (all DEs were reclassified as frigates in 1975) began with ships of the USS Dealey (DE-1006) class. These ASW escorts were suitable for convoy duty, but lacked the speed needed for fleet operations. The still-numerous World War II destroyers, upgraded through the Fleet Rehabilitation and Modernization (FRAM) program, were better suited for ASW work. Cold War building programs saw the design and construction of numerous destroyer and related classes. Two ships of the Bronstein (DE 1037) class, the smallest ships built with the large SQS-26 bow-mounted sonar, also carried ASROC, a twin 3-inch/50-caliber gun mount forward, and a DASH deck and hangar aft. Their successor was the Garcia (DE 1040) class, planned to be more than 60 ships. In fact, just 10 were built. The Garcia-class ships were fitted with two 5-inch/38-caliber guns, ASROC, torpedoes, and a DASH deck. Six additional Garcia-class ships were built with a missile launcher in place of the after 5-inch/38-caliber mount and were classified as the USS Brooke (DEG-1) class–they were the Navy's first guided-missile escort ships. An additional Garcia-class derivative, the USS Glover (AGDE-1, later FF-1098), was built with an experimental propulsion system and was used as a test ship for advanced ASW procedures and tactics. All of the Garcia-class ships were equipped with pressure-fired boilers, designed to produce more horsepower for the weight and volume of their engineering plants. The first of an eventual 46 ships of the Knox-class (FF 1052) frigates entered service in 1969. These 4,200-ton ships–powered by a 1,200-pound steam plant, with two boilers and one screw–could attain 28 knots, fast enough for operations with a carrier task force (if barely, at times). The ships were valued for their ASW capabilities in the screen. The Knox-class ships could support convoys and amphibious task forces, and were among the first ships in the destroyer force to deploy with helicopters embarked–the Kaman SH-2D “Seasprite,” built as part of a new program aimed at providing the Navy's surface combatants with a multimission aviation platform. Called LAMPS, for Light Airborne Multi-Purpose System, the upgraded Seasprites soon proved their worth conducting ASW, antisurface warfare, and utility missions. Sikorsky-built SH-60 Seahawk helicopters continue to perform the same roles today from the destroyer's small flight deck. Just as the destroyer's weapons and sensors continued to be improved as the Cold War progressed, engineers turned to new propulsion systems, notably the gas-turbine engine. “Marinized” jet aircraft engines proved to be reliable, powerful, and responsive. Four GE-built LM2500 gas turbines powered the USS Spruance (DD 963), commissioned in 1975–the first of the Navy's gas- turbine-powered destroyer-type ships. Gas turbines also power ships of the Ticonderoga (CG 47), Kidd (DDG 993), and Arleigh Burke (DDG 51) classes. The Spruance-class destroyer was designed with “room for growth” so that new sensors, systems, and weapons could readily be added at a later date; the Department of Defense now sees fit to call this concept “spiral development.” The four guided-missile destroyers of the Kidd class, built for Iran (but never delivered), were formidably upgraded with high-performance AAW systems, including Mk26 twin-rail launchers for Standard missiles fore and aft, the new Mk45 5-inch/54-caliber gun forward and aft, and a hangar for two SH-60B Seahawk helicopters. Some ships of the Spruance class were later fitted with Tomahawk cruise-missile launchers; other hulls were fitted with vertical launch systems (VLSs) that give them a massive strike capability for power-projection missions. Many of the Spruances performed ably in this capacity during the 1991 Operation Desert Storm strikes against Iraq–and, later, in 1999, against NATO targets in Serbia and Kosovo. Geopolitical discussions of “Tomahawk diplomacy” soon came into vogue–signaling the surface Navy's ability to strike targets quickly, and with unprecedented precision, hundreds of miles from the sea. The development of the Aegis combat system, with its large phased-array radar, brought a new dimension to the destroyer's ability to track and engage multiple aircraft and missile targets. Instead of designing a new cruiser hull for Aegis, the Navy built the Ticonderoga-class CGs upon the proven Spruance hull form. USS Ticonderoga, the name ship of the class, is the same length as the Spruance, but has a greater displacement and requires a larger crew. The first of the Oliver Hazard Perry (FFG 7) class of guided-missile frigates entered service in 1977. The last–USS Ingraham (FFG 61)–was commissioned in 1989. Although the Perry-class frigates possess only half the overall propulsion capability of contemporary destroyers, their LM2500 gas turbines deliver enough power for them to operate with carrier battle groups. They carry both a Standard missile system and a 76mm gun. There are 35 FFGs in the fleet today, including eight in the Naval Reserve Force. As Navy shipbuilding funds continue to fall, the FFG 7s are being phased out of the fleet, and no new frigate design is currently proposed as a replacement. The post-Cold War destroyer force performed yeoman service in the many new missions that came its way with the end of the Soviet Union's challenge at sea–maritime intercept operations (MIOs) in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea, counterdrug operations, and strike and air-defense missions performed during national and coalition military operations in the war against international terrorism. It is noteworthy that the Aegis weapons system–developed at the height of the Cold War–continues to set impressive standards of performance as the Navy pursues new capabilities in its sea-based ballistic-missile defense program. On 25 January 2002, the guided-missile cruiser USS Lake Erie launched a Standard missile-3 (equipped with a kinetic warhead) that intercepted an Aries target missile launched from the Pacific Missile Test Range; the ship scored a similar success in a second intercept on 13 June. In each test, the Standard missile acquired, tracked, and diverted toward the target missile to destroy it in the exoatmosphere. Destroyers for Today–And Tomorrow The Navy's new class of front-line guided-missile destroyers, the Arleigh Burke DDG 51, is named for the famed World War II destroyerman who later became chief of naval operations (and was the only CNO to serve in that post for six years). The warfighting capabilities of the class have continued to improve steadily, and impressively, since the lead ship was commissioned in 1991. Today's “Flight IIA” Arleigh Burke-class ships, beginning with the Oscar Austin (DDG 79), represent a significant upgrade over the earlier Burkes with the addition of a pair of helicopter hangars, an improved VLS with 64 missile cells, a mine-avoidance system added to the ship's SQQ-89 sonar, blast-hardened bulkheads, and a fiber-optic data multiplex system. Other improvements are planned to enable the ships of this versatile class to take advantage of new weapons and command-and-control systems. As older Spruance-class hulls are decommissioned, the potent and technologically advanced Arleigh Burke-class DDGs will serve as the mainstay of the Navy's destroyer force well into the early decades of the 21st century. It is instructive to note that the Navy is turning the pages of history back to retrieve a lesson from the destroyer's creation 100 years ago. With the next -generation DD(X) destroyer program now paving the way for a family of multimission destroyers and cruisers for the 21st century, conceptual work is underway to design a new class of ship with a narrowly focused mission–the littoral combat ship (LCS). The LCS, configured with tailored mission modules, will be able to counter enemy small boats, diesel submarines, and mines in coastal waters while protected by the capacious defensive umbrella of the larger multimission destroyers and cruisers that form the larger elements of the DD(X) “family of ships.” The evolution of the U.S. Navy's destroyer has in a sense, therefore, come full circle during the past 100 years. From its narrowly focused mission of 1902, today's sophisticated ships offer multimission combat capabilities that would likely defy the imaginations of the “Tin-Can” Sailors of yesteryear. There is no question that tomorrow's destroyer force will be equipped with even more potent technological marvels. What will always continue to really define the destroyer Navy, however, are the Sailors who crew these greyhounds of the sea–those predominantly young men and women who, like John Paul Jones, are ready to take their ships into harm's way, to fight, and to win. * http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/sep_02_49.php

Navy Strategy of Engagement Builds Trust