Page 1 GAO-05-752R Progress of the DD(X) Destroyer Program 

June 14, 2005 

The Honorable James M. Talent 

Chairman 

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Seapower 

Committee on Armed Services 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Roscoe G. Bartlett 

Chairman 

The Honorable Gene Taylor 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Projection Forces 

Committee on Armed Services 

House of Representatives 

Subject: Progress of the DD(X) Destroyer Program 

The Navy is developing a new destroyer, the DD(X), to serve as a next-generation multimission surface 

combatant ship. It will provide advanced land attack capability to support forces ashore and contribute 

to military dominance in shallow coastal water environments. To reduce program risk and demonstrate 

the ship’s 12 technologies, the Navy is building 10 engineering development models that represent the 

ship’s most critical subsystems. This approach is intended to improve the assessment of these key 

subsystems by designing, developing, and testing working models early in the process. 

In September 2004, we reported that while the engineering development model process could be 

beneficial, the program’s schedule does not allow enough time to acquire appropriate levels of 

knowledge before key decisions are made. We also reported that some of the engineering development 

models were progressing according to plan, but others faced significant technical challenges. 

This letter provides an update on the progress of DD(X) subsystems, as demonstrated by recent tests 

and design reviews of the engineering development models. Our review concentrated on five of the ten 

engineering development models. These five development models were chosen because of their 

importance to the overall ship design, congressional interest in specific models, or the occurrence of 

recent test events. We provide more limited information on the remaining five development models. We 

conducted our work under the Comptroller General’s authority and are addressing the report to you 

because of your subcommittee’s jurisdiction on the issues discussed in this report. 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Enclosure I: Integrated Power System 

Page 2 GAO-05-752R Progress of the DD(X) Destroyer Program 

Background 

The program currently is approaching two key decision points. One is Milestone B, when the Navy will 

decide on whether to authorize the award of a detail design and construction contract for production of 

the lead ship(s). In an August 2004 memorandum to the Secretary of the Navy, the acting Under 

Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics detailed specific exit criteria to be met 

before Milestone B. Milestone B was planned for March 2005 but has been delayed several times and is 

now expected to take place before the end of the fiscal year. 

In addition to the Milestone B decision, the program will complete a critical design review by August 

2005. This review is intended to demonstrate the design maturity of the ship and its readiness to proceed 

to production. 

To develop and test the ship’s twelve critical technologies, the Navy is building ten engineering 

development models that represent the ship’s most critical subsystems. The development models are 

described in Table 1. 

Table 1: Description of Engineering Development Models 

Engineering 

development models Description 

Advanced gun system Will provide long-range fire support for forces ashore through the use of unmanned 

operations and the long-range land attack projectile. 

Autonomic fire suppression system Intended to reduce crew size by providing a fully automated response to fires. 

Dual band radar Horizon and volume search improved for performance in adverse environments. 

Hull form Designed to significantly reduce radar cross section. 

Infrared mockup Seeks to reduce ship’s heat signature in multiple areas. 

Integrated deckhouse and apertures A composite structure that integrates apertures of radar and communications 

systems. 

Integrated power system Power system that integrates power generation, propulsion, and power distribution 

and management. 

Integrated undersea warfare system System for mine avoidance and submarine warfare with automated software to 

reduce workload. 

Peripheral vertical launch system Multipurpose missile launch system located on the periphery of the ship to reduce 

damage to ship systems.a

Total ship computing environment Provides single computing environment for all ship systems to speed command 

while reducing manning. 

Source: DD(X) program office and contractors. 

a

The Navy refers to both the enclosure for the launcher and the full subsystem as the Peripheral vertical launch system. 

As a baseline for assessing developmental progress and for informing decision making, the program has 

established two sets of quantitative metrics, one for the ship as a whole, referred to as performance 

parameters, and one for the engineering development models, referred to as critical technical 
Enclosure I: Integrated Power System 

Page 3 GAO-05-752R Progress of the DD(X) Destroyer Program 

parameters. According to the DD(X) program’s test and evaluation plan, “failure to achieve a critical 

technical parameter should be considered a reliable indicator that the system is behind in the planned 

development schedule or will likely not achieve an operational requirement.” 

Summary 

The DD(X) program’s demonstrations and component tests met the exit criteria for its engineering 

development models established by the Undersecretary’s August 2004 memorandum. While progress 

has been made, the level of technology maturity demonstrated remains below what is recommended by 

best practices, as outlined in our September 2004 report. Tests of several engineering development 

models resulted in successful demonstration of exit criteria. In other cases, tests identified technical 

problems that will need to be overcome before ship installation or that have led to changes in the ship 

design. The permanent magnet motor, a key element of the integrated power system, failed tests, and 

was replaced by the advanced induction motor. Because the Navy maintained the induction motor as a 

fallback technology, the integrated power system was able to meet the exit criteria. The substitution of 

the advanced induction motor does change the noise, weight, and space usage of the power system, 

which could have implications for the ship design. The multifunction radar, a segment of the dual band 

radar, successfully completed the land-based testing described in the exit criteria, but the volume search 

radar has encountered technical problems with a key component. The integrated deckhouse and 

apertures development model will soon begin testing for antenna placement and radar cross section. 

Questions about the properties of the proposed component materials are delaying production of an 

article for fire and shock testing. The advanced gun system demonstrated exit criteria through modeling, 

and additional component tests have verified this performance. An early failure in required munitions 

flight testing was overcome, and two further flight tests have been completed successfully. Tests of the 

peripheral vertical launch system led to a redesign effort; tests to determine the suitability of the new 

design will complete in June 2005. Additional information on these five engineering development models 

is presented in enclosures I to V. The status of the other five engineering development models is 

discussed in enclosure VI. 

Weight is a challenge for individual subsystems and the ship as a whole. The integrated power system, 

advanced gun system, and integrated deckhouse all have encountered problems staying within weight 

limits. These problems have contributed to overall weight growth in DD(X). As a result, the current 

design is slightly over the margin reserved for weight in the system development phase, which ends with 

critical design review in August.1

 A number of key events to demonstrate technology will occur near the 

end of this phase, and it remains to be seen whether they will have any impact on weight. Other elements 

of the design for certain subsystems, including space issues for the power system and materials issues 

on the deckhouse, remain unclear. These challenges could result in changes late in design or during 

construction, leading to higher costs. 

 1

 There is additional margin for weight in later phases of design that allow for growth. 
Enclosure I: Integrated Power System 

Page 4 GAO-05-752R Progress of the DD(X) Destroyer Program 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 

The Department of Defense reviewed a draft of this letter and provided technical comments which we 

incorporated as appropriate. Their response is included as Enclosure VII. 

Scope and Methodology 

To complete our review, we examined the DD(X) program’s operational requirements document, test 

and evaluation master plan, developmental test reports, early operational assessment, and risk 

management plan. We supplemented this information with discussions with Navy program and test 

officials as well as key contractors. In addition, we visited selected facilities to further enrich the quality 

of our analysis. We conducted our work between January and June 2005 in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. 

We are sending copies of this letter to the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense; the 

Honorable Gordon R. England, Secretary of the Navy; and interested congressional committees. We will 

make copies available to other interested parties upon request. In addition, the letter will be available at 

no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

Please contact me at (202) 512-4841 if you or your staff have any questions concerning this letter. Other 

major contributors to this letter were Karen Zuckerstein, J. Kristopher Keener and Marc Castellano. 

Paul L. Francis, Director 

Acquisition and Sourcing Management 

Enclosures 
Enclosure I: Integrated Power System 

Page 5 GAO-05-752R Progress of the DD(X) Destroyer Program 

Summary 

Design of the propulsion and power distribution systems has changed significantly. Due to problems 

discovered in component testing, the advanced induction motor will be used in the design instead of the 

permanent magnet motor, which will alter the ship’s layout and increase weight. 

Description 

The integrated power system centrally generates and distributes power to the ship for all functions, 

including propulsion. This design allows greater flexibility in power use and will allow the integration of 

high energy weapons in the future. The integrated power system consists of three primary components: 

turbine generator sets, a power distribution system, and propulsion motors. A significant technical 

challenge is development of propulsion motors which are used to turn the shaft and propeller. To reduce 

risk the program is carrying two designs of propulsion motor, the permanent magnet motor and the 

advanced induction motor. 

Table 2: Performance Parameters Relating to Integrated Power System 

Performance parameters Threshold Objective 

Speed — rate at which the ship travels 30 knots 30+ knots 

Endurance — nautical miles the ship can 

travel 

4500 nm 6000 nm 

Acoustic signature — low noise to avoid 

detection 

Classified Classified 

Survivability — ability to produce power 

when damaged 

Identify and isolate faults, supply 

power as user requires 

Steady state power at set rate with one 

or more faults 

Sources: U.S. Navy (data); GAO (analysis and presentation).

Table 3: Critical Technical Parameters Relating to Integrated Power System 

Critical technical parameters Description Demonstrated? 

Generator no load open circuit voltage Ability of turbine generator sets to 

produce amount of power needed 

Yes 

Generator full rated current at rated 

speed 

Ability of turbine generator sets to 

produce rate of power needed 

Yes 

Motor and drive rated speed at rated 

voltage 

Ability of propulsion motor to produce 

power needed to turn shaft 

Yes 

Main turbine generator set fuel 

consumption at endurance load 

Amount of fuel needed by turbine 

generator set to reach endurance 

Future 

Propulsion motor torque at maximum 

rated speed 

Ability of propulsion motor to turn shaft 

and produce speed 

Future 

Sources: U.S. Navy (data); GAO (analysis and presentation). 

Enclosure I: Integrated Power System 
Enclosure I: Integrated Power System 

Page 6 GAO-05-752R Progress of the DD(X) Destroyer Program 

Progress of Engineering Development Model 

In order to complete Milestone B for DD(X) the integrated power system was required by the August 

2004 memorandum to complete factory acceptance testing1

 on a number of critical components. All the 

required tests have been performed and met expectations, with the exception of the permanent magnet 

motor. 

Table 4: Schedule of Key Events Relating to Integrated Power System 

2004 2005 2006 and beyond 

October: Main turbine generator set 

factory acceptance test 

October: Advanced induction motor 

factory acceptance test 

November: Auxiliary turbine generator 

factory acceptance test 

January: Auxiliary turbine generator 

factory acceptance test 

January: Permanent magnet motor test 

failure 

July-September: Land-based testing of 

integrated power system 

To be determined: Full power load test 

To be determined: Integration and 

testing with ship control system 

Source: U.S. Navy. 

The program has completed initial testing on propulsion motors for DD(X). The program is carrying two 

designs of propulsion motor, the permanent magnet motor and the advanced induction motor. The 

program prefers to use the permanent magnet motor due to its ability to meet requirements with less 

weight and noise, but was carrying the advanced induction motor as a backup. Recently, the permanent 

magnet motor failed to demonstrate the speed needed to produce the required power. The advanced 

induction motor tested successfully in October 2004 and has now been selected as the propulsion motor 

for DD(X). This change has implications for design as the advanced induction motor is heavier and less 

efficient than the permanent magnet motor and will require more space. The change to advanced 

induction motor also has implications for testing scheduled for this summer. As these tests were 

designed to use both propulsion motors, it is unclear whether the same knowledge can be gained with 

just the advanced induction motor. The program manager has stated that there is the possibility of 

reintroducing the permanent magnet motor should it resolve its problems. 

Factory acceptance tests on turbine generators were performed to demonstrate their ability to produce 

the power needed for DD(X). The design for DD(X) requires two main turbine generators and two 

auxiliary turbine generators which are tested to similar requirements. The main turbine generator set, a 

Rolls-Royce MT-30 turbine and a generator produced by Curtiss-Wright, was tested in October 2004. Due 

to limitations of contractor facilities the turbine engine and the generator were tested separately. Some 

problems with heat were experienced in testing of the turbine engine, but program officials have stated 

these issues have been resolved. The program tested two different turbine engines for the auxiliary 

generator sets, a Rolls-Royce MT-5 and a General Electric LM-500. Both turbine generator sets 

 1

 Factory acceptance testing generally demonstrates the basic performance of a component as specified by the contractor. 
Enclosure I: Integrated Power System 

Page 7 GAO-05-752R Progress of the DD(X) Destroyer Program 

demonstrated they were able to produce the power necessary and actually produced more power than 

predicted. 

Design of the power distribution system was also changed to reduce weight and improve performance. 

According to officials, the Navy will use a system it has been developing called “integrated fight through 

power,” which includes the use of solid state components and rapid switching technologies. 
Enclosure II: Dual Band Radar 

Page 8 GAO-05-752R Progress of the DD(X) Destroyer Program 

Summary 

Of the two major parts of the dual band radar subsystem, the multifunction radar is proceeding well 

while the volume search radar faces several technical challenges. Specifically, a core component of the 

volume search radar encountered problems in testing, creating additional pressure on an already 

challenging schedule. 

Background 

The dual band radar monitors airborne and surface activities, guides weaponry to targets, and conducts 

environmental mapping. The dual band radar is made up of two major radar systems, the multifunction 

radar and the volume search radar, unique technologies that are brought to bear jointly on a range of 

critical tasks to improve overall depth and quality of battlespace “vision.” The volume search radar 

specializes in providing information on aircraft, missiles, and other activities in the vast, open sky 

environment. In contrast, the multifunction radar is designed to monitor airspace at “horizon” or nearthe-surface levels for threats such as low-flying antiship cruise missiles. 

Table 5: Performance Parameters Relating to Dual Band Radar 

Performance parameters Threshold Objective 

Ability to identify and engage antiship missiles, aircraft, 

and other aerial threats 

Classified Classified 

Ability to identify and engage swarm boat groups, 

surface ships, and periscopes (submarines) 

Classified Classified 

Sources: U.S. Navy (data); GAO (analysis and presentation). 

Table 6: Critical Technical Parameters Relating to Dual Band Radar 

Critical technical parameters Description Demonstrated? 

Search and track multitask 

capability 

Ability to search and track simultaneously VSR — Future 

MFR — Future 

Firm track range (sensitivity) Distance from which an object’s exact location, speed, 

and trajectory can be identified definitively 

VSR — Future 

MFR — Yes 

Clutter rejection Ability to operate in a maritime environment and maintain 

full functionality under good or bad weather conditions 

VSR — Future 

MFR — Yes 

Sources: U.S. Navy (data); GAO (analysis and presentation). 

Progress of Engineering Development Model 

Testing and development of the multifunction radar is proceeding well. There have been a number of 

design changes, including a power/cooling system redesign that reduced weight. These changes will be 

validated in land based tests with the volume search radar in August 2007. Tests of the multifunction 

Enclosure II: Dual Band Radar 
Enclosure II: Dual Band Radar 

Page 9 GAO-05-752R Progress of the DD(X) Destroyer Program 

radar’s clutter rejection capabilities and firm track range, two critical technical parameters required for 

demonstration by the August 2004 memorandum, have been proven in demonstrations with realistic 

targets. In a simulated scenario, the multifunction radar has demonstrated the ability to guide an 

Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile against an inbound cruise missile. Testing of the radar’s ability to 

communicate with one of its own outbound missiles will take place in 2007, when the fully assembled 

dual band radar undergoes land-based tests. A significant risk remaining is ensuring that the shape and 

placement of the multifunction radar meets radar cross section requirements. 

Table 7 - Schedule of Key Events Relating to Dual Band Radar 

2004 2005 2006 2007 and beyond 

September–October: 

Multifunction radar tests for 

clutter rejection and sensitivity 

September: Multifunction 

radar cross section tests 

February: Integration and 

test of volume search radar 

array 

February-May: Multifunction 

radar at sea tests 

May: Engineering 

development model “string” 

test for the volume search 

radar 

June: Volume search radar 

array delivery 

August: Dual band radar 

land-based tests 

To be determined: continued 

development of volume 

search radar to meet 

requirements 

Source: U.S. Navy. 

The transmit/receive units, the individual radiating elements that are the essence of the volume search 

radar, encountered difficulties when a key component failed in testing. Officials believe they have 

identified a solution to the problem, but a further design iteration is needed to fully satisfy performance 

requirements for the engineering development model. Additional iterations of design will be necessary 

before ship installation. 

The schedule for construction of the dual band radar is already challenging, with the radar for the first 

DD(X) scheduled for placement after the ship is already afloat. Additional delay in development of the 

volume search radar could further endanger the schedule for ship construction. 
Enclosure III: Integrated Deckhouse and Apertures 

Page 10 GAO-05-752R Progress of the DD(X) Destroyer Program 

Summary 

Construction of the fire and shock test article, one of two test articles for the integrated deckhouse, was 

postponed until the detailed design and construction phase and will not be tested until after DD(X) 

critical design review. The second article, designed to test radar cross section and interference between 

antennas, is nearly complete and will begin testing in May and June of this year. 

Background 

Integrated deckhouse and apertures refers to the superstructure on the deck of the ship and the 

openings in which radar, sensor, and communication equipment are placed. A major focus of deckhouse 

design is to reduce the ship’s radar cross section signature. A separate technical challenge, referred to as 

co-site interference, involves placing apertures in precise locations to ensure the signals from the 

multitude of antennas do not interfere with one another. 

Table 8: Performance Parameters Relating to Integrated Deckhouse 

Performance parameters Threshold Objective 

Radar cross section — Needs to be reduced so that enemy radar 

cannot easily identify the DD(X)a

Classified Classified 

Interoperability — Ensuring all systems within the deckhouse work 

together without conflicta

Classified Classified 

Survivability — Deckhouse resilience to fire and shock Classified Classified 

Sources: U.S. Navy (data); GAO (analysis and presentation). 

a

Key performance parameter. 

Table 9: Critical Technical Parameters Relating to Integrated Deckhouse 

Critical technical parameters Description Demonstrated? 

Co-site interference Ensuring operation of deckhouse 

antennas and equipment do not interfere 

with one another 

Future 

Radar cross section reduction The deckhouse will contribute to total 

ship radar cross section reduction 

Ongoing 

Sources: U.S. Navy (data); GAO (analysis and presentation). 

Progress of Engineering Development Model 

The contractor, Northrop Grumman, is building two test articles to fulfill requirements for the testing of 

the deckhouse. One is a fire and shock test article that will be subjected to underwater explosions, and 

Enclosure III: Integrated Deckhouse and 

Apertures 
Enclosure III: Integrated Deckhouse and Apertures 

Page 11 GAO-05-752R Progress of the DD(X) Destroyer Program 

the other is an integrated deckhouse article that will be tested for radar cross section and antenna 

placement. 

Northrop Grumman halted construction on the fire and shock test article because of issues pertaining to 

design of the joints that hold panels of composite material together. A contractor official has stated that 

specifications required that no damage be experienced in testing, as has been the case with composite 

structures in other programs. The Navy decided that these specifications were too conservative as the 

rest of the ship is not held to the same requirement. According to the contractor, the Navy relaxed this 

specification. Construction of the fire and shock test article has been further delayed because facilities 

for shock testing are not available until 2006. In addition, further time is needed to conduct analysis of 

composite properties regarding issues such as structural strength, corrosion, toxicity of fumes when 

composites catch fire, and ability to bind composites with the steel hull. The program office states that 

the ability of the deckhouse design to meet requirements will continue to be analyzed in support of the 

critical design review. Testing of the fire and shock article is now scheduled for the next contract period, 

after DD(X) critical design review. 

Table 10: Schedule of Key Events Relating to Integrated Deckhouse 

2004 2005 2006 and beyond 

August: Begin antenna predelivery tests 

November: Begin fire and shock testing 

(postponed) 

February: End antenna predelivery tests

March: Shielding effectiveness tests 

April: Lightning-protection tests 

June: Co-site interference tests 

July: End fire and shock testing 

(postponed) 

September: Radar cross section tests 

August: Begin antenna pre-delivery 

November: Begin fire and shock testing 

(postponed) 

Source: U.S. Navy. 

Since May 2004, a series of changes involving equipment, antenna size, and positioning have been made 

to the deckhouse, which has caused changes in the placement of apertures. The integrated deckhouse 

test article is now nearly complete as are preparations at the test range. Tests of radar cross section, 

including all deckhouse antennas and the multifunction radar (half of the dual band radar system), will 

begin in May 2005. Co-site tests for interference will follow in June 2005. 

The deckhouse has experienced some problems remaining within its margins for weight. To reduce 

weight the program has made a number of changes to the design including modifications to 

fragmentation protection, and redesigned power and cooling systems for the radars and other 

components. The program office states that the deckhouse is now in compliance with its weight budget. 

A contract official has indicated that lessons learned from production of the test articles has reduced 

risk and validated processes. 
Enclosure IV: Advanced Gun System 

Page 12 GAO-05-752R Progress of the DD(X) Destroyer Program 

Summary 

Tests performed for the advanced gun system in support of Milestone B were completed with modeling 

of a virtual prototype and partially validated with subsequent component tests. Two of three munition 

flight tests were completed successfully. Final design of the advanced gun system exceeds previous 

weight margins due to changes made to facilitate ship construction. 

Description 

The advanced gun system is a large caliber, unmanned gun system designed to fire long-range projectiles 

in support of land attack missions, such as strikes at specific targets or suppressing fire in support of 

ground troops. The DD(X) design calls for two gun systems with approximately 300 rounds in each 

magazine, with an additional 320 rounds in an auxiliary magazine. Because the gun system provides 

supporting fire for land attack, a fundamental mission objective of the DD(X), it needs to be able to 

quickly and accurately hit a substantial number of land-based targets from a significant distance. The 

system consists of the mount (the gun together with its housing and movement mechanisms), a fully 

automated magazine, and a munition known as the long range land attack projectile. 

Table 11: Performance Parameters Relating to Advanced Gun System 

Performance parameters Threshold Objective 

Number of advanced gun systemsa 2 2 

Total ship advanced gun systems magazine capacitya 600 1200 

Ship personnel (with helicopter detachment) a 175 125 

Gun ready — time required to execute a mission 2.5 min. 1 min. 

Maximum rate of fire — number of rounds per minute 10 12 

Sustained rate of fire — rounds at maximum rate 300 600 

Accuracy — distance of impact from target Classified Classified 

Range — distance in nautical miles munition can travel 63 100 

Lethality — explosive power of munition current 155mm current 155mm 

Sources: U.S. Navy (data); GAO (analysis and presentation). 

a

Key performance parameter 

Enclosure IV: Advanced Gun System 
Enclosure IV: Advanced Gun System 

Page 13 GAO-05-752R Progress of the DD(X) Destroyer Program 

Table 12: Critical Technical Parameters Relating to Advanced Gun System 

Critical technical parameters Description Demonstrated? 

Pallet unloading rate (which 

demonstrates gun ready time and rate of 

fire) 

Time required to unload pallet of 

munitions (8 munitions per pallet) 

Yes 

Projectile muzzle velocity Speed at which the projectile exits the 

barrel 

Yes 

Sources: U.S. Navy (data); GAO (analysis and presentation). 

Progress of Engineering Development Model 

In order to complete Milestone B for DD(X), the advanced gun system was required by the Under 

Secretary’s memorandum of August 2004 to demonstrate its required firing rate through modeling. In 

October 2004, it did so by using a physics-based software model that includes the software functionality 

for all major components of the advanced gun system and incorporates the results of physical testing. 

Results met or exceeded expectations for response time, rate of fire, sustained rate of fire, range, and 

pallet unloading rate. The contractor has begun verifying the results through testing of physical 

components. In April, the magazine component of the advanced gun system successfully completed 

factory acceptance testing by demonstrating its ability to meet requirements and has been shipped to 

Dugway, Utah, for integration into further land-based tests. Land-based tests will demonstrate the entire 

firing sequence of the advanced gun system. These tests will not demonstrate the ability of the gun 

system to communicate target information to the munition or the ability to move the gun side to side. 

The munition will not be tested with the gun until after ship installation. 

Table 13: Schedule of Key Events Relating to Advanced Gun System 

2004 2005 2006 and beyond 

October: Virtual testing to meet DD(X) 

Milestone B criteria 

Second quarter: Component testing 

begins 

December: First munition guided flight 

test 

First quarter: Component testing ends 

April: Factory acceptance testing of the 

magazine 

January–February: Munition guided 

flight tests 

May: Factory acceptance testing of the 

mount 

May: Long-range land attack projectile 

preliminary design review 

July: Land-based testing of the mount 

and magazine 

April–September: Further guided flight 

tests of munition 

To be determined: Munition firing from 

gun system 

Source: U.S. Navy. 
Enclosure IV: Advanced Gun System 

Page 14 GAO-05-752R Progress of the DD(X) Destroyer Program 

The munition for advanced gun system, known as long-range land attack projectile, has completed three 

flight tests at Point Mugu, California; and has successfully demonstrated launch, tail fin deployment, 

canard deployment, rocket motor ignition, global positioning system acquisition, and some flight 

maneuvers. The first guided flight test failed when the canards deployed improperly and controlled flight 

was lost. The issue was identified, corrected, and successfully resolved in later flight tests. The current 

schedule calls for completion of an additional twelve flight tests by the end of September 2005. There is 

a proposal to reduce the number of tests in this time period to four or five but to continue to test 

requirements for all phases of flight including distance. Information is incomplete about what details of 

testing might be lost under this proposal. 

Recently, the design of the advanced gun system was changed to support ease of production for DD(X). 

The advanced gun system will now be constructed as a single modular unit, transported to the shipyard, 

and installed as a block. This redesign has added some weight which has been accounted for in the 

current design. 
Enclosure V: Peripheral Vertical Launch System 

Page 15 GAO-05-752R Progress of the DD(X) Destroyer Program 

Summary 

A demonstration to test the peripheral vertical launch system against expected threats resulted in a 

dramatic destruction of the test article that necessitated redesign and further testing. A second test 

replicating the same conditions with the new design and representative materials will be held in June 

2005. 

Description 

The peripheral vertical launch system consists of the missile launcher, referred to as the advanced 

vertical launch system, and the enclosure for the launcher, referred to as the peripheral vertical launch 

system. The system is located on the sides of the ship to improve survivability, rather than the more 

traditional central positioning. The launcher is an evolutionary improvement on the existing design to 

ease introduction of new missile types. The enclosure is a revolutionary design that prevents damage by 

directing explosions away from the ship. 

Table 14: Performance Parameters Relating to Peripheral Vertical Launch 

Performance parameters Threshold Objective 

Number of advanced vertical launch 

cellsa

80 128 

Survivability Classified Classified 

Launch time Classified Classified 

Sources: U.S. Navy (data); GAO (analysis and presentation). 

a

Key performance parameter. 

Table 15: Critical Technical Parameters Relating to Peripheral Vertical Launch 

Critical technical 

parameters Description Demonstrated? 

Antipropagation wall impact velocity The wall will not impact the cell canister 

of adjacent stored missiles with velocity 

of greater than a certain number of 

meters per second 

Future 

Blast overpressure Blast pressure in the adjacent module 

shall be less than the ordinance 

sensitivity threshold 

Yes 

Launcher response time Time between mission request and 

launch 

Yes 

Sources: U.S. Navy (data); GAO (analysis and presentation). 

Enclosure V: Peripheral Vertical Launch 

System 
Enclosure V: Peripheral Vertical Launch System 

Page 16 GAO-05-752R Progress of the DD(X) Destroyer Program 

Progress of Engineering Development Model 

In May 2004, the program conducted a test to verify the design of the peripheral vertical launch system 

enclosure by detonating a surrogate of an enemy missile among the missiles the DD(X) is expected to 

carry. The design operates by allowing the wall facing away from the interior spaces of the ship to 

fragment first and release pressure. During the test the walls intended to protect the ship and adjacent 

launchers from explosion were pierced by shrapnel. The result was an immense explosion that severely 

damaged the test article. While program officials believe that the critical technical parameters were 

partially demonstrated in the test, the amount of damage caused by shrapnel has led to a redesign effort. 

Program officials are concerned that this shrapnel could cause explosions in adjacent enclosures and 

have proposed adding material, Kevlar or a similar material, and some additional steel bracing, to the 

inside of the enclosures to prevent this. The new design has been partially validated through component 

testing, and will be fully demonstrated in June. 

Table 16: Schedule of Key Events Relating to Peripheral Vertical Launch 

2004 2005 2006 and beyond 

May: Initial most credible detonation 

event test for enclosure 

April: Launcher factory acceptance 

testing 

May: Peripheral vertical launch system 

four cell test

June: Repeat of detonation event test 

May: 8-cell full system test (postponed) 

To be determined: 8-cell full system 

test 

Source: U.S. Navy. 

Although the new design of the peripheral vertical launch system calls for Kevlar, which is in short 

supply, or a similar material for ballistic protection, the contractor does not believe the construction 

times will be affected. Officials have also stated that the weight added by the redesign does not push the 

peripheral vertical launch system beyond its margins. 

According to a contractor official, scheduling of a new most credible detonation event test will push a 

planned eight-cell test, which would have demonstrated the ability of both the enclosure and the 

launcher to survive an explosion, into the next phase of the contract. To mitigate risk the program will 

perform a similar test with a four-cell test article before the ship’s critical design review. 
Enclosure VI: Other Engineering Development Models 

Page 17 GAO-05-752R Progress of the DD(X) Destroyer Program 

Integrated Undersea Warfare

Description 

The integrated undersea warfare system is used to detect mines and submarines in the littorals and 

consists of medium and high frequency arrays, towed arrays, and decision-making software to reduce 

workload. The undersea warfare system is tested for three performance parameters (manning, mine 

avoidance, and ability to attack submarines) by demonstrating three critical technical parameters 

(detection and classification of mines, angle of approach of mines, and detection and classification of 

submarines). Tests for the demonstration of mine warfare’s critical technical parameters were scheduled 

for May; submarine warfare tests were scheduled for June. 

Progress 

• According to program officials, at-sea tests of algorithms for antisubmarine warfare have been 

changed to laboratory testing due to a lack of test ships. 

• Significant advances in the automation of submarine detection and tracking may be required to meet 

manpower goals. 

• The portion of the sonar array used to detect mines experienced some issues receiving sonar beams 

in recent testing. The program office states that these issues have been resolved. 

Table 17: Schedule of Key Events Relating to Integrated Undersea Warfare 

2003 2004 2005 

November: Preliminary design review March: Critical design review 

December: Array interference tests at 

Seneca Lake 

May: At-sea tests for mine avoidance 

June: Lab tests for antisubmarine 

warfare 

Source: U.S. Navy. 

Infrared Signature Mockups

Description 

The DD(X) program seeks to reduce the heat signature of the ship using material treatments on the 

deckhouse, passive air cooling for engine exhaust, and a sheeting water system on the hull. The infrared 

signature mockups support the ship’s performance parameters for survivability by demonstrating three 

critical technical parameters, all of which relate to heat signatures of various parts of the ship. 

Progress 

• The use of infrared materials to reduce heat signature has changed due to design tradeoffs for 

performance, weight, and cost. Program officials state that the operational requirements are still 

achievable using the new design. 

Enclosure VI: Other Engineering 

Development Models 
Enclosure VI: Other Engineering Development Models 

Page 18 GAO-05-752R Progress of the DD(X) Destroyer Program 

• Program officials have determined that further testing of exhaust suppressors for the main turbine 

generator is no longer necessary. Previously the program had tested the suppressors with a surrogate 

main turbine engine. 

• Sheeting water system for the hull has been deleted from the ship design and replaced with an 

alternate system. 

Table 18: Schedule of Key Events Relating to Infrared Signature Mockups 

2003 2004 2005 

March: Preliminary design review March: Completion of at-sea materials 

testing 

March-April: At-sea panel tests 

October: Critical design review 

December: Design tests 

Third Quarter: Small exhaust 

suppressor testing (cancelled due to 

change in materials) 

Source: U.S. Navy. 

Hull Form

Description 

DD(X) uses a radically new hull design to reduce the radar cross section of the ship. Development also 

includes design of a new propeller. The hull form development model supports ship performance 

parameters for survivability, operations in various ocean environments, and speed. Models are currently 

being tested for three critical technical parameters: hull form resistance, efficiency of the propeller, and 

capsize probability. 

Progress 

• Development of software model used to predict hull form behavior is continuing. 

Table 19: Schedule of Key Events Relating to Hull Form 

2004 2005 2006 to Future 

December: Initial model tests 

September: Maneuvering tests 

February: Resistance, powering, and 

cavitation tests with design propeller 

March: Sea keeping and loads tests 

July: Hull form scale model tests 

July: Critical design review 

To be determined 

Source: U.S. Navy. 
Enclosure VI: Other Engineering Development Models 

Page 19 GAO-05-752R Progress of the DD(X) Destroyer Program 

Autonomic Fire Suppression System

Description 

The autonomic fire suppression system utilizes new technologies such as smart valves, flexible hosing, 

nozzles, sensors, and autonomic operations to reduce the crew and time needed for damage control. 

This system is vital for meeting performance parameters for ship survivability and manning as measured 

by three critical technical parameters: time for automatic reconfiguration of fire suppression systems 

and the autonomic reduction of temperature in the primary and adjacent damage areas. Testing for these 

critical technical parameters was performed on two Navy test ships and has been successful. 

Progress 

• An initial test aboard the ex-Peterson, a test ship, successfully demonstrated the system’s ability to 

detect damage and control fires. 

• Tests aboard the ex-Shadwell, another test ship, are demonstrating the same abilities for specific ship 

environments. 

• Because the exact components used in testing aboard the ex-Shadwell may not be the ones used in 

ship construction, Navy officials state that it is unclear how the engineering development model will 

translate into final ship design. 

Table 20: Schedule of Events Relating to Autonomic Fire Suppression System 

2003 2004 2005 

September: Preliminary design review January: Weapons effects testing on 

ex-Peterson

September: Critical design review 

January-April: Testing for specific ship 

environments on ex-Shadwell 

Source: U.S. Navy. 

Total Ship Computing Environment

Description 

This engineering development model seeks to demonstrate a single computing environment for all ship 

systems to speed command while reducing manning. This development model consists primarily of 

software, with program officials estimating that it will require a total of 20 million lines of new and 

reused code. The system contributes to manning, interoperability, and survivability performance 

parameters and is measured by six critical technical parameters. These include speed of data delivery, 

defense against information security threats, the ability to both track and engage targets, contribution to 

ship threat response times, and time required to recover after equipment failure. The program office 

states that the ability of the total ship computing environment to achieve these parameters was 

demonstrated through testing of the second software release. 
Enclosure VI: Other Engineering Development Models 

Page 20 GAO-05-752R Progress of the DD(X) Destroyer Program 

Progress 

• Two of seven software blocks released. 

• Software production following disciplined development plan. 

• Schedule has limited margin for correction of defects found in testing. 

Table 21: Schedule of Events Relating to Total Ship Computing Environment 

2003 2004 2005 

September: Preliminary design review May: Critical design review 

June: Software release 1 certification 

March: Software release 2 certification 

May-September: Land-based tests 

September: Software release 3 

certification 

Source: U.S. Navy. 
(120403) 

Enclosure VII: Agency Comments 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and

distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER