US' Next-Gen Guided-Missile Destroyer

The DDG(X) program, also known as the Next-Generation Guided-Missile Destroyer program, is a major initiative of the United States Navy aimed at developing a new class of advanced guided-missile destroyers. The primary goal of the program is to replace the aging Arleigh Burke-class destroyers after the Zumwalt-class failed to meet the Navy's expectations due to a combination of factors. Let's take a closer look at it!
➢ Subscribe: ‪@defencecentral‬
➢ Check out our recent video on chemical warfare: • Chemical Warfare, Expl...
FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER
Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
Defence Central does not own the rights to these pictures. They have, in accordance with fair use, been repurposed with the intent of educating and inspiring others. However, if any content owners would like their images removed, please contact us by email at defencecentral1 [at] gmail.com
#DDGX #GuidedMissileDestroyer #Destroyer #US #Navy #Naval #NextGen #Defense #Defence #DefenceCentral #New #USNavy #AdvancedTechnologies #MilitaryTechnology #NavalForces #ArleighBurkeClass #ZumwaltClass #IPS #IntegratedPowerSystem #HypersonicMissiles #BallisticMissileDefense #SurfaceCombatants #FutureOfWarfare #MilitaryEquipment #MilitaryDevelopment #DefenseIndustry #DefenseContractors #NationalSecurity #NavalModernization

[@wulfeman9948]

we need 2 new destroyers for each fighting ship retired for at least 10 years

[@randallteal9504]

the burke class does not need replacing keep this class and upgrade it

[@russellyork9027]

I can’t wait to see this, I’m a former USA Day 996 chandler. Love this Chanel! Ty for ur hard work sharing the love we put out! Go America!

[@defencecentral]

Thank you for your kind words and thank you for your service!

[@PriyankaLiyanage]

Awesome video 👍

[@adamwsaxe]

I wouldn't describe the Arleigh Burkes--as a class, at least--as "aging." Some are ~30 years old. Some are 1.

[@MultiCconway]

At present the DDG-51 Destroyer is the quintessential design for a Surface Combatant on the face of the planet.

[@productguru8323]

Long time no update on DDGx

[@wulfeman9948]

retiring 7 cgs this year but not much being built to replace them .

[@valianttmt8044]

At some point the US Navy is going to need something to replace the Burkes. Can’t keep building them forever at taxpayers’ expense.

[@acadventure2867]

DDGX project is one of the most powerful warships of the future

[@wulfeman9948]

there is no reason "WE " cant build 2 new " FIGHTING "ships each year .. .. the zumwalt costs 4.5 billion each and thats over 2 times the costs of the ddgs

[@michaelr4858]

4.5 is not twice 3. It’s only one half more.

[@petermonahan2140]

It would be a good thing for people to remember that laser weapons are line-of-sight and can be compromised by atmospheric conditions.

[@defencecentral]

Thanks for your input! It's true that atmospheric conditions can impact laser weapons, but advancements like adaptive optics help mitigate these effects. However, in severe conditions like heavy rain, thick fog, or dense smoke, warships and fighter aircraft may opt not to depend on laser weapons at all, based on engagement range and target requirements. Also, the decision to use laser weapons is not black-and-white; they complement kinetic arsenals, providing a range of capabilities as sensors and scalable weapons. Lastly, many defense companies are increasingly focusing on laser weapons, suggesting that newer technologies will continue to improve.

[@Coinz8]

False.

[@MM-qp8kt]

Is this a cruiser or a destroyer?

[@Grafknar]

“ We’re gonna make a new destroyer, taking no later than 11 years“ This is why we’re going to lose the next war at sea. It never seems to occur to anyone that ships can get sunk.

[@616CC]

Looks f awesome bro From 🇬🇧

[@dennisbeaulieu3664]

Yes , We need a much larger Navy

[@scottjackson5173]

I strongly suggest laying down at least three competing designs? Then place in mass production the best of the three ships built. Build now, talk later!

[@glendamico9004]

The main issue they need to fix for these kind of weapon platforms is to decrease the amount of time spent reloading 48 cruise missiles. As things currently sit to my understanding ships have to sail back to port to do this. They need to make the whole system a massive “plug and play” module if you will so as to spend at best 2-6 hours with the whole reload operation. Also, the killer laser is cool as long as they can keep up with the power required which is massively substantial. I’d recommend keeping a big gun maybe on the aft section just to stay away from the heat of the laser and in case the juice runs out.

[@Coinz8]

Yeah, can't have it all that way

[@user-cx8bl1ih5q]

You would think the would finish there frigates firestorm

[@davidsoncl1]

How much will AI design change the appearance of the next class of destroyers?

[@MultiSerge1980]

The problem is with the Navy its self. At this time, the Navy is continuing to change plans on the current ships that are being built. These changes add time and cost to the ship build and forces the contractors to almost rebuild the ship to accumulate these changes. What the Navy needs to do is to let the contract start and then let the contractors build the ship without interference from the Navy that now wants to add new ideas toa already complicated build. These changes cost money and time and this is one main reason that all current ships that are being built are running behind schedule.

[@pjeverly]

I know the Arleigh Burke's are an old design, but we really could just keep building them. Make a Flight 4 and 5 with technology upgrades. But to keep making them bigger and costlier is dumb. We don't need it. Just up gun the Constellation class a bit and that will be a lot of hulls and good price.

[@defencecentral]

Thank you for your comment! It's interesting that you brought this up since the US Navy is already working on upgrading the Arleigh Burke class destroyers. Just recently at the SNA event (early January 2024), they unveiled the names of the initial four destroyers set to undergo said upgrades, including cutting-edge radars and sophisticated electronic warfare suites. These improvements are integral to the Navy's strategy for modernizing its destroyer fleets, alongside the DDG(X) program to develop and acquire an entirely new design.

[@texassabre7214]

No money, no boat.

[@sirxavior1583]

The only question I'd have is does the navy have the budget to build them in the same numbers that the Chinese are building up their navy?

[@panpiper]

Not even close. The Chinese build rate is twice that of the US. Moreover at least on paper, their type 055 destroyers are MUCH more heavily armed than the Arleigh Burkes. If the US is not willing to concead control of the South China Sea and the rest of the region, they'd better be planning to seriously up their game. Two Constelation class frigates have half the throw weight of missiles and almost twice the crew requirement of a single Arleigh Burke destroyer, not to mention being more expensive too (for two frigates).

[@wulfeman9948]

800 billion to the military is way more then enough to cover 2or 3 FIGHTING SHIPS a year

[@michaelpfister1283]

I just can’t help but think that a CGX based on the Zumwalt, with SPY 6 and Aegis would be cost effective. Delete the AGS, replace one mount with the current 5” gun and the other with Mk41 tubes to increase their missile load. Keep the bulk of the design intact and the development cost will be low.

[@Dylan_Rivas]

I'm sure the USN is now reassessing their decisions now that they have read your KZbin comment.

[@wulfeman9948]

more destroyers one 5 " gun and more missiles and make more of them .. 2 or 3 smaller ones vs one big destroyers with same type guns and missiles is better

[@panpiper]

Smaller ships are NOT the answer. The crew size of a smaller frigate is almost the same as a much larger, more capable destroyer able to carry three to four times the throw weight of power. The purchase cost of a ship is 90% the electronics and internal gear, NOT the hull and engines. You save very little money simply making your ship smaller.

[@wulfeman9948]

@@panpiper i agree but they are putting little guns on them now and few missiles .. they cant hurt anything .. need 5" gun and missiles even a smaller ship with 5" gun and missiles can defeat us ships with 57mm guns and short range missiles

[@user-qp1tz9bd9j]

Another multiple $B’s pissed away on Zumwalt 2.0. I can only assume that on every desk in the Pentagon is a sign that says “bankrupt America today”. The ROK and JMSDF evolve Burkes to stay competitive but we have to go broke on the bleeding edge of technology.

[@seesafar9912]

Build it

[@billygibson2613]

Ddg,X the better future ship's for Australian waters and has long range hypertonic best fighting frigates for everyone in Australia ten of this model

[@alejomeneziii8822]

That kind of pprogram is good, remember it is US we,'6te talking.

[@MultiCconway]

DID HE SAY . . . "Payload Module" ? . . SHAME ON HIM!

[@chiluokb]

下一代航母战斗群35节

[@johncheatham6616]

Navy needs to bust a move , so we spend on new ships not old.

[@rgarrison1819]

We will be lucky to be able to keep what We have, Manned and Ready to Sail, with a Federal Budget of over 34 Trillion Dollars and Climbing, and the Interest on that debt fast approaching 1 Trillion, The US will be Lucky just to jeep the Ships we have in Fighting shape!, Plus the Navy is Experiencing major Recruiting Issues,Our Active Ships in The Atlantic and Pacific regions are all currently operating undermanned, Which puts an extreme strain on existing Crews, Which makes Ships unsafe and Vulnerable to accidents and enemy attacks!!!,Our Elected leaders in Washington DC over the last 30 to 40 Years, have put Our country in harms way by Spending Money like Drunken Sailors, When a Nation is Trillions of Dollars in Debt, You don't keep increasing Spending each year,You must cut spending, and start by cutting giving Billions of Dollars with no accountability to the Country of Ukraine!!!

[@fppro1679]

A destroyer needs helicopters to defend itself from submarines, and the surface error missile system to protect itself from aircraft, missiles etc. That being the case, seems like destroyers are only able to just about protect themselves, I'm not there. Offensive capability can be pretty limited to maybe some missiles. Might be better to just build a small carrier, with helicopters and maybe some f-35 ST OVLs? It would be big enough to have an ageis system, but the aircraft could extend their range much further. It would be big enough to reconfigure quickly like they expected the literal combat ships to do, but never really did. Maybe we've seen the end of the destroyer?

[@benjaminmcclatchey9814]

They already have “small carriers” navy calls them amphibious assault ships. Wasp class and America class…

[@fppro1679]

@@benjaminmcclatchey9814 they need something a little more svelte.

[@webstertyrrell9412]

​@@benjaminmcclatchey9814They have converted at least one of these to what they're calling "lightning carriers" loaded with F-35s.

[@jaredproffitt3720]

@@fppro1679 I think we are seeing an end to carriers, we need a 30-40k ton class of gun ship with larger vls cells for the upgraded range missiles that give surface vessels greater strike range than carriers. Also with the advancements in anti air defenses air craft are becoming less effective and more vulnerable.

[@fppro1679]

Time will tell. The Navy loves missiles because they're low maintenance. That said, You can't reload it. See which is a big problem, capacity is a problem and the number of threats to a surface ship are just going to get worse and worse. The ages system protects against air threats and the helicopter protect against submarine threats, so when you look at an Arleigh Burke destroyer, about 90% of its content is just protecting itself. The only real offensive power the navy has is the carriers and the submarines. Technologies moving so fast. The data from the Patriot system in the Ukraine is going to be really useful in finding out just how effective these SAM systems are. I would love to know what that is.

[@gamer_gex]

3 billie per ship? hell no ...

[@user-xh2yg4uv9q]

A year later and nothing is built yet. It is all talk.

[@AnthonyDixon-vq4yn]

Change change the design for new stealthier look build it like a fighter plane light the F-22.

[@KevinFelker]

The future of warfare is Space Force! Just shoot a railgun projectile towards Earth and ... well there' won't be much left. It'd be great if we just stopped fighting. LOL

[@ScoobyDoo-zp1sq]

Looks like a copy of the Type 055 from China lol

[@lyric-992]

Its not the Final design

[@panpiper]

It's not a copy, but the conception is similar. The Chinese wanted to build a bigger, better Arleigh Burke. The Americans want to build a replacement for the Arleigh Burke and make it better.

[@arthurrogers2289]

Need guns

[@wulfeman9948]

one 5" gun more missiles

[@yesyall40]

Why does it take us so long to get a ship when the Chinese crank them out like a car dealership?

[@JoebsonOSRS]

Because the Chinese ships are glorified fishing vessels

[@panzershrek7942]

As a mexican, chinese stuff is always rushed and under-qualified.

[@panpiper]

@@JoebsonOSRS Do a google search for Type 055 Destroyers and then tell me that's a 'fishing vessel'. Underestimating your enemy is both the worst and most common military error.

[@user-gi8vl5fb4b]

​@@panzershrek7942我感觉你同样在讽刺 ww2时期的美国

[@wulfeman9948]

why can other countries build good destroyers with a 5" gun and lots of missiles for les then a billion $ but the usa cant ? unions

[@jamesricker3997]

No, other countries have much stronger unions. The USN puts in more powerful radar and ECM systems. US military contractors also price gouge whenever possible.

[@wulfeman9948]

@@jamesricker3997 unions are the problem in everything .

[@royssche]

in the US an Employe cannot survive with $300/mont but 300/month is pretty good pay for me who live in Asia and Our Frigate Ships cost arround $250 millions

[@wulfeman9948]

@@jamesricker3997 well its not price gouging when its approved

[@juniorleslie4804]

Politicians also, since to get Congress to vote for a major Pentagon program of record, requires contracts and sub-contracts in as many states as possible, to get the votes in Congress. Therefore, just to get funding for the program, requires votes from as many districts, in order to get the votes, lots of government gravy has to be spread around.

[@Redefras]

Why is every video AI voiced now? If you wrote the script, just voiceover it.

[@rocknroll9233]

US VS RUSIA ? RUSIA YES 🚀🚀👍 URRAA. UK VS RUSIA ? RUSIA YES 🚀👍 POSEIDON 🚀👍 HYPERSONIK 🚀👍 RUSIA URAAA RUSIA URAAA RUSIA YES 👍👍👍

[@StereoSpace]

Why does every video about a navy project have to include a history of every similar ship the navy ever built? Why not use that time to provide more information on the subject at hand? Too much fluff, too little actual information.

[@scottjackson5173]

Interesting video about intriguing designs. But, all too nebulous! The destruction of Moskva demonstrated the vulnerability of a hull filled with very expensive missiles. Missiles are very impressive in the air! Below decks solid fuel rocket engines are a looming catastrophe ready to burn, at anytime! Proponents of the Zumwalt class recognized the need for a better gun for naval service. Only to be sabotaged by a series of poison pills. None of the US Navy's advanced gun systems seem to be going anywhere. The 8" major caliber light weight gun program was also sabotaged. Installing such a powerful weapon on an upsized fletcher class hull? At 3000 tons, USS Hull, was smaller than the Oliver Hazard Perry. The rsnge and accuracy of modern guns has greatly improved. The ability of guns to use lower cost, easier to manufacture munitions cannot be underestimated. Operations in Ukraine and the Red sea, demonstrate that not only are missiles too expensive for a high intensity conflict. Manufacturing limitations have the potential for disaster. After all, missile dependent ships without missiles to fire, are just targets. No one is talking about building new battleships or heavy cruisers. Just the ssme, a wider variety of advanced guns are needed for naval operations. The concept of an advanced 155 mm gun for the Zumwalt class was a great idea. So good, that the opposition restricted the weapon to the use of only one, very expensive rocket assisted missile. When the ability to fire any 155, or 6" shell in the inventory could have been part of the RFP! As memory serves, I heard USS Des Moines had a cartridge fitting room where any 8" round could be fitted for use with the ship's guns. Lighter rounds could be fitted with sabots for use as well. The 40 mm bofors round is still quite popular. Why not a chain gun, CIWS system similar to the Danish Goalkeeper system? A longer range and harder hitting CIWS for hypersonic missiles. To supplement not replace the current vulcan phalanx. Improved guns in the 3", 6" and 8" range are needed. Short range wire guided rounds could help with point defense engagement. Most guns have the advantage of not needing substantially improved electricity generation. Laser or Mazer energy weapons all require a substantial increase to onboard electricity generation. Having a significant impact on the ship's fuel and combat range. Looking forward to a new major combat ship for the US Navy. Call a cruiser sized ship, a destroyer if you like! USS Zumwalt is the size of the 2nd class pre-dreadnaught battleship. Fair winds and following seas.

[@robertgittings8662]

*055 copy*

[@dyong888]

The DDG(X) is an expensive and inferior amerikan copy of the Chinese Type 055 Destroyer.

[@PaulineTran-vc3zy]

b/s we dont copy china most navy ships these day will look similiar look at the Zumalt

[@dyong888]

Not true. The amerikans found out the Dumbwalt destroyer is a piss poor design and decided to copy China's 055 destroyer. Just look at the DDGX, its practically a copy cat of China's design. Copy cat yankees. We lie cheat steal - Pompeo.@@PaulineTran-vc3zy

[@panpiper]

Expensive, yes. Similarly armed, yes. Inferior? What cool-aid have you been drinking?

[@dyong888]

The amerikans have a history of making stuff that even their bloated MIC don't want... e.g. the LCS, the Dumwalt. Others like the Abrams are still hiding in the Ukraine and refusing to come out and play.... Keep drinking your coolaid. @@panpiper

[@djibicisse]

@@dyong888 Ddg is a cruiser

[@planetjupiter2551]

We can sesn hundreds of billioms to th3 ukraine but cant fund our wn navy? What has this come to

[@someoneinthechat-ko6jz]

Another Zumwalt turd type program. I was working at LMCO when the Z was conceived(1999). Took 20 years to figure the ship was useless and way too expensive to replace current ship.

[@defencecentral]

Thanks for sharing your experience! It's always insightful to hear from someone who was involved in the early stages of platform development. Besides the high cost, what other factors do you think contributed to the Zumwalt-class program ultimately failing?

[@someoneinthechat-ko6jz]

@@defencecentral It couldn't preform most of the duties of a destroyer. The gun never worked, an "all in one ship" was and still is a terrible idea.(same with fighter jets) It's claimed "moduler" payload for different missions was cumbersome and not needed. Subs deliver SF betters. Cost was ludicrous, and ultimately killed any notion Z would replace Arleigh Burke.

[@yilivalley]

copy 055

[@kalmurphy5254]

China has the best ships the usa ships are only on paper like the rest of the United states wepons Russia has been destroying all the western countries wepons in Ukraine so they don't have the best at all.

[@HewanBerbulu1730]

Chill out dude, Why do you hate so much

[@daviddrotar410]

Let's put a 155 millimeter main deck rail gun on the new destroyers! It's great that Bath Iron Works & Ingulls Industry's is putting the Spy 6 radar on the new destroyers. 🇺🇸⚓️📡🛰

[@aburetik4866]

A cheap knock off of the Chinese type-055

[@lyric-992]

Its not the final design. Plus the Type 055 is cheaper

[@lyric-992]

Like how china copied the Design of the Spy 1 radar

[@armchairgeneral7557]

Calling a US destroyer cheap is laughable. China makes cheap knock offs of US tech in everything they do.

[@hoseagermany4211]

😅

[@RoderickRobledo-yo6xs]

Another waste of Taxpayer money!!

[@mcc9102]

😂 Luckily Chinese already serviced 8 055 destroyers which look exactly like DDGX. But American will claim Chinese use time machine travel to the future to steal DDGX design.