Litton DDM (Aegis DDG) for USN c. 1980

[erik_t]

All information from Friedman's Destroyers.

Having produced the privately designed Spruance class and its
Ticonderoga offshoot, Litton Industries (Ingalls Shipbuilding) offered
the Navy an alternative to the evolving DDX. This 1980 sketch shows
the firm's DDM (destroyer, missiles) proposal. Like DDX, it offered
the Aegis system with vertical launchers in a less expensive hull. A
May 1980 Ingalls brochure described DDM as a variant of the final
Spruance-class destroyer, USS Hayler (DD 997). This design was
compared to a 6000-tonner {note: info of which is omitted here -
erik_t}, which was presumably the DDX variant then under
consideration. Both ships had two 61-cell vertical launchers (106
Standard Missiles and 16 Tomahawks)... DDM had a 5-inch gun (aft) plus
2 Phalanx for close-in defense... each also had Mk 32 torpedo tubes,
but only DDM had reloads. The DDM combat system was based on Aegis...
DDM had the existing Aegis system... DDM would use the standard type
{of SQS-53}. Each ship was powered by three (rather than four of a
standard Spruance LM 2500 gas turbines, for a sustained speed of 29
knots (range 5000nm)... DDM did not {use integrated electric drive}
(its most economical mode, with only one turbine running, required it
to trail one shaft)... 6900 tons (529' waterline/563' overall x 55 x
15 ft; displacement was also given as 5859 tons light and 7145 tons
fully loaded, compared to 8040 tons fully loaded for Hayler) for
DDM... DDM could accommodate two {helo} parking spots. Litton also
claimed that its design offered far more growth potential (30-40
percent vs. 10-15 percent in payload). Estimated cost in FY 80 terms
was $187 million for a lead ship and $130 million for a follow-on...
compared to a Spruance, DDM offered better survivability and better
fuel economy. Survivability improvements included relocating CIC to
the hull, all-steel construction, and some armor (about 50 tons of
HY-80). This sketch does not quite match the May 1980 brochure, in
that it shows a pair of 3-inch guns (no 5-inch). There are also three
rather than four illuminators (in the May 1980 version, the fourth
illuminator was placed atop a lattice foremast, where the sketch shows
a pylon). In the May 1980 version, the ship has a Phalanx forward
where the 3-inch gun is in the sketch, the other being abaft the after
uptakes; the 5-inch gun is right aft, abaft the helicopter platform.
In the sketch, the helicopter platform has been relocated to the
fantail, presumably to shorten the ship.

Waving a magic wand...



A few notes on my part. First and foremost, holy cow she looks a
little less lithe in the orthogonal view! Kind of big-boned if you ask me,
but oh well... All drawing stems from careful measurement of the
drawing, knowledge of (helpfully indicated) deck heights and SPY-1
size, and the fact that it's a Spruance hull underneath. Careful
viewing of the sketch (especially if you have a better-quality copy)
clearly shows that the VLS block is an out-of-scale 64 (61) cell Mk
41. There's very obviously no space for an after VLS block in the
sketch. Given the long foredeck, I chose to interpret the design as
having the quoted 128 (122) cells all forward in essentially a single
block. This skews the foredeck somewhat, but such is life. She comes
out looking almost dangerously top-heavy, but the large superstructure
block aft of the SPY-1 faces does appear to be almost exclusively
uptake space. Based on shadowing of the sketch, it appears that there
might be a pronounced turtle-deck forward; given the claimed Spruance
heritage, I have omitted this possible feature. Friedman does not make
any note of hangar space; given the fact that DDX did not foresee a
hangar, and the presence of the after 3"/62, I have concluded that
there is no hangar or organic helo on this design.

The drawing is obviously incomplete, although most major features are
now present.

[Novice]

I wonder how you managed to leave the Spruance underneath, like a water mark

[Colosseum]

The use of proper drawing tools, like Photoshop.

[TimothyC]

Even though she's a bit big boned in the ortho, I do like her lines.

I'm not sure she would have the room organic growth that the Flight 1 Burkes had though, that's the downside.

[Colombamike]

Deleted

[klagldsf]

^ where did you find that?

It's clearly based on an OHP hull (almost certainly lengthened and likely widened too) trying to be a mini-Burke, which isn't an outright bad idea for an AEGIS-capable escort frigate.

[Colombamike]

Mainly ratio/proportions concerns

[erik_t]

Sigh. I feel like I'm going to be repeating myself.

First, not sure you read this: THE DRAWING IS OBVIOUSLY INCOMPLETE, ALTHOUGH MOST MAJOR FEATURES ARE NOW PRESENT. Life nets around the helo are not a 'major feature'.

It's art. While trying to adhere to design attributes as much as possible (eg the two 76/62 instead of one Mk 45), some things are more concrete in words. Litton was explicit in saying that this was a modification of a Spruance hull. And from the drawing, it is very clearly a flush-decker, with no forecastle. So we know where the sheer line is - same as the Spruance forward, and continuing unbroken to the stern. I won't waste any more time addressing your height ratio complaints individually.

The VLS are the 'exact same level', but there is no such thing as an angled line with pixels!

The Litton document explicitly stated 122 (128) VLS cells. This takes up a very well-defined length, and the foredeck is a pretty well defined fraction of the whole ship length. This means the clear deck area forward of the fore 76/62 is compressed somewhat. I don't get to invent smaller VLS cells. Likewise, I don't get to have decks sized for yetis or midgets.

The SLQ-32 is in exactly the correct position to within the precision of measuring the drawing.

The after superstructure area does look barren, but that's because the after Phalanx is well out of scale. I invite you to compare the lengths of various structures back there and arrive at a different length buildup. You won't. The SPY-1 deckhouse is well-defined in size (because we know the size of the array faces), and the block aft of that is approximately the same length. Yet the superstructure level below must run aft nearly to the after funnel, which is fixed in place by the length of the helo area and the after 76/62.

By the way, your supposed red parallel lines would not be parallel - you're completely ignoring parallax.

I love your annotated drawings, but this is all either a) already explained, b) mandated by the explicit use of a Spruance hull, or c) simply incorrect.

[ex-navy]

Erick
Did you ever finish your design..
here is some additional information...
also please consider the Spanish Burke Design..
It would be a logical progression if this beast was built...
Did you ever consider a lattice type mast/mack verses a Just plain Mack...

[erik_t]

I never did finish it. And God, I know I've seen that picture before, but for some reason I remember it showing a clearly different design than the Litton art (in that era particularly, artist's conceptions could differ substantially from the design itself).

It's still not identical (aft VLS is on a different deck, for one thing) but it's much closer than I thought. Good enough to get some good scaling info.

I'll need to revisit this ship when I have some free time.